> From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > F4.0 and 5.6. The Sigma is noticeably sharper than the FA 24. The DA > 16-45 at 20 mm. is also much sharper than the FA 24, and runs so close > to the Sigma that I cannot pick a winner.
24s, especially fast 24s, appear to be rather hard to build. I've heard unflattering things about the FA 24, and plenty of folks (me among them) have harsh words for the Nikkor AIS 24/2.0 (which was not updated in autofocus mount...). The 24mm Takumar screwmount is better than the 20 but noticeably worse wide open and towards the edges than a 28 or 35. Apparently technology hasn't made great inroads here since the takumar days. > Yes, the DA 16-45 is noticeably sharper than the FA* 24 at those stops. > Take note, those who still claim that primes are always sharper. To be fair, you'd need a DA 20 prime to test against. Still, modern zooms are quite good if the designers don't compromise on price. I'd put my 70-200 against almost any prime in that focal length range. > What did strike me about the FA* 24, though, is how consistent the > images were from f2.0 through 5.6. There was little difference between > wide open and stopped down. I haven't seen too many lenses like that. I > often shoot wide-angle primes indoors without flash, so I need them to > be sharp at large apertures. The FA* 24 is nearly as sharp at f2.0 as it > is at smaller apertures. The "must have" solution is a Canon EOS1DS and 24/1.4, or simply a film camera. Presumably neither of these is an acceptable option. I'm stuck in exactly the same boat. > Conclusion: Ths Sigma's poor performance wide open, along with its size > and weight, mean that it will not be part of my traveling kit. It might be argued that a 20/1.8 that is no good wide open is hardly worth having instead of a 20/2.8. Why not the FA 20/2.8? Nice to see a review of the Sigma 20, though. I've been eyeing it for essentially the same reasons, and the fact that it is cheaper than any manufacturer's 20/2.8 has always worried me. > I need Pentax to come out with a fast (f2.0 or better) DA prime in a > focal length between 16 and 20 mm. Have the lens assembler in Vietnam > put one together, Pentax, and I will buy it. I'm not sure you want to pay what it costs to make a 20/2.0 that is actually good optically. What little I found on the 21/2.0 Olympus lens was not very complementary, and as far as I know they are the only other company besides Sigma to try it. I'll bet that a good 20/2.0 could be made, even by Pentax, but that it would be big, heavy, and expensive. Consider that the 28/1.4 Nikkor--which is quite good--costs $1600 and is the size and weight of an 85/1.4. Presumably a 20/2.0 would be at least as hard to do right. DJE
