> The FA* 24 is indeed weak at f2.0. It is still weak at f2.8. From f4.0 > on it is quite good. This is what Popular Photography reported in > testing it, and also what I have found in testing it. I am rather > disappointed in its performance, although I love its build.
Also the CA it exhibits is the worst of nearly any 24mm K mount lens I've tested on the *ist D and it's not the retrofocus ratio as the A15/3.5 is much better than it.
> I use my primes in low light, and need them to be useable wide open. I > typically make prints on 8-1/2 x 11 inch (A4) paper of images that I > like. This is where the FA* 24 disappoints in its wide apertures.
Same here, I've had to buy another lens and forsake a stop because just doesn't perform to my expectations wide open.
----------------
Pop Photo's old review in 1993 mentioned the lateral CA.
Rob, what are you using it its place? I have currently borrowed the Sigma 20 f1.8. It is bad at f1.8, useable at f2.0 and 2.4, and quite good from f2.8 on. It is, though, big and heavy (82 mm. filters), being made for 35 mm. I keep hoping for a DA 18-20 f1.8-2.0.
Joe
