--- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can't agree, with the CA trimmed its sharpness in the corners > (which really aren't on a *ist D or DS and I've tried two samples > to be sure) hoovers compared to the A24/2.8, ...
Difference of opinion, Rob. I haven't owned an FA24/2AL to see for myself, and so far I'm quite happy with the A24/2.8 so I likely never will. However, John's opinions have proven quite credible to me on many occasions so far. > I've got a Sigma clip-on "Perfect" tulip hood for 50mm lens on > my A24/2.8, with this out of frame flare becomes a non issue. > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5268.jpg > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5271.jpg > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5272.jpg > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5274.jpg > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5275.jpg I'd be interested to know the part number of that lens hood. I'm currently using a Nikon HN-1 hood, which is the recommended hood for a 24mm lens on 35mm format, but I'd like to get something tighter for the 16x24mm field of view. I do have a B+W 49mm round hood that is normally suggested for a 24x36mm film camera format and 50mm lens, perhaps I will try that to see if it vignettes. Any comments on the A35/2.8? I just picked up one of those very cheap, should be here in a day or three. There's only one comment on Stan's Pentax list (not a very complimentary one) but I've read that the M35/2.8 (identical optical formula supposedly) is quite a good lens, if a little soft wide open. At the price, I was willing to experiment... Godfrey __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
