I don't find the FA 24-90 to be bad. See some sample details, taken with the *istD, here: 24mm: http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p11e.htm 28mm: http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p12e.htm 90mm: http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p13e.htm Even at 50mm, it is not bad. The main advantage of the prime lens is, of course, its speed.
Dario Bonazza ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Whittingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:42 AM Subject: Re: Zoom vs Prime (Nov '04 P/Photo) > I was thinking of replacing my FA 28-105 4/5.6 with the 24-90, just how bad > is it? Was the FA 50mm f/1.4 tested? Could I bribe you to scan me the test LOL > > Best, > > John > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:56:41 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Zoom vs Prime (Nov '04 P/Photo) > > > An article in the Nov '04 Pop Photo verifies that the > > performance gap between zooms and primes is ever > > narrowing. Actually, in one set of tests the zoom out > > performed the prime. > > I was both pleased and disappointed in the case of the > > Pentax lenses. I had been mulling the idea of > > replacing an FA 28-70 f/2.8 (glorious optic-but heavy) > > with an FA 24-90 f/3.5-4.5 (at 50mm) which was pitted > > against a 50mm f/1.7 AF (FA, F?). > > Think I'll hold off on the 24-90. It's only one SQF > > test, but not good. The 50mm results, however, were > > extremely good. In fact Pentax tests (both good and > > bad) stood out in the series. > > Another benign dilemma. > > > > Jack > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > ------- End of Original Message ------- >
