Jens asked: >Any comments on this lens, please? >I could be a very reasonabley priced standard zoom "4/35-80mm" for Pentax >*ist D?
I don't own one, but from reading other people's comments I'm given to believe that it's not great. The M24-35 is supposedly better. I'd expect a fair amount of barrel distortion in a 24-50 given what the M24-35 does. To be fair, I haven't heard that ANY manufacturer's 24-50 zoom was very good except the 25-50 Nikkor, which is apparently quite large and heavy, and a first generation, prove-we-can-do-it lens. Either 24-50 is hard to do, even at f/4, or the intended market for the 24-50/4 zoom was pretty undemanding in quality. I'm kinda surprised, because 24-50 (on film) always seemed like it made a whole lot of sense and I'd have thought that photojournalists would have been all over them as they subsequently jumped on the 20-35 and 17-35s, if anybody had made a good one. That said, I've got a 24-50 f/3.3-4.5 AF nikkor--which has a reputation for mediocrity among Nikon users--to use as a "35-80" zoom on my Nikon D100, just as you suggest. What I really wanted, of course, was a 20-50 zoom to give "28-80" rather than "35-80". I think Sigma makes or made a 20-40 zoom. DJE
