>From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Does anyone have this? If so, what are your impressions?
I too would be interested to hear impressions of this lens as I am still looking for a replacement for my 28/1.4 for DSLRs. It's not really that I need f/1.4 that often, but that I'd like my $1400 28mm to actually frame like a 28mm. If I really wanted a 43 I hear that the FA limited is quite nice... I do wish somebody besides Sigma made a 20/2.0 (Olympus did, back in the OM era). Perhaps the fact that only Sigma does suggests that the manufacturers don't feel they can make such a lens up to their standards at a reasonable size and price (not that those factors ever seem to deter Canon...) The fact that Sigma's 20/1.8 sells for less than a Nikon or Pentax 20/2.8 worries me. I've been looking at the Sigma 20, but it's too expensive a gamble given my previous experience with third party lenses. >I need wide primes that are fast because I use them indoors. I am afraid >that the DA 14 f2.8 won't cut it. The widest prime I've got is the FA 24 >f2.0, but its aov on the *ist D isn't wide enough. Have you been shooting digital and really finding that extra stop a problem?? Granted, I'd be happy to have f/2 or f/1.4 wides, but I'm finding that with the underexposure latitude and good high ISO performance of digitals I'm not missing the really wide apertures nearly as much as I thought I would. Most really fast wides are pretty nasty wide open anyway. I'm shooting mostly f/2.8 zooms under photoJ conditions and not having much trouble with getting enough light. >I thought about the Mir 20 mm. f2.5, but it is so thick at the rear that >it may not fit under the *ist D's prism. At 2.5 (?) you might as well get the A/FA 20/2.8, which is from what I've heard a fine lens. I'd be suspicious of the 14 just because I have not heard anything great about ANYBODY's 14s. Perhaps the fact that it isn't full-frame gives the Pentax lens an optical edge. DJE
