$25AUD all up if you must know. May one day replace it with the pentax 28/3.5 or somesuch.
David
Greg Lovern wrote:
I have the DA 16-45mm and I like it, but I get sharper photos on my *ist D when I use my F 50/1.7 and my Tamron 90/2.5 Macro (which I use more for portrait than for macro). I use the F 50 and the Tamron 90 on the *ist D for portraits, but I'd like a sharp prime that's wider than them while sharper than the DA 16-45.
The three lenses I'm thinking about are: -- FA 35/2.0 -- FA 28/2.8 -- FA 24/2.0
The 35 sounds like a great lens, but I'd like something a little wider.
The 28's angle of view on the *ist D is probably about what I'd like, and I like its smaller size and weight compared to the 35 and the 24, and on the *ist D, f2.8 is plenty fast enough for me. But it sounds like it isn't as sharp as the 35 and the 24. Is that true? Is it very noticeably less sharp than the 35 and the 24? Of course, on the *ist D I only really care about the middle ~43% of the image that the lenses would create on film. Also, I hardly ever shoot wide open, so I'm more interested in how they compare at f8 or whatever their sharpest aperature is.
The 24 sounds like a great lens, and its angle of view on the *ist D, though at the wide end of the range I'd like, is okay. But it's much bigger and heavier than the 28, and on the *ist D I don't really need the extra f-stop. It's also the most expensive.
I would choose the 24 if it's noticeably sharper than the 28 (middle ~43% of the image that would appear on film; and at f8 or sharpest aperature, not wide open); otherwise I'd prefer the smaller size and weight of the 28.
Any suggestions or other thoughts?
Thanks,
Greg
