Joseph Tainter wrote: <snip>
The FA 20 contains neither, yet it seems to be a better 20/2.8 than the offerings from Nikon, Canon, or Minolta. It is also a sharper lens than the DA 14 ED. The FA 20-35 contains no ED elements, yet at 20 mm. it performs slightly better on the D than the DA 16-45 does. (Of course, it also has a more conservative zoom range. I consider them essentially equivalent in their performance.)
Maybe someone who knows more could chime in on these last observations.
I too would be interested in a comparison of the 20-35 vs 16-45 at equiv. focal lengths. I've been considering finally selling my beloved FA 20-35 f/4 AL, and would replace it with the 16-45mm f/4 AL ED lens. I would hope for at least as good performance out of the 16-45, particularly since it is tailor made for the *ist-D(s) cameras, wheras the 20-35 was tailored for 35mm format.
When I need a two-lens daykit I'll carry the 20-35mm and 50mm f/1.4. I would love to expand this to 16-45 and 50mm, and possibly a third such as the FA 135mm f/2.8. But I'd like to hear that I won't be trading substantial image quality for broader zoom range.
We know that third-party manufacturers can produce very fine lenses when they want to. But they need to undercut the first-party manufacturers on price, so often their lenses come up just a bit short.
I've never ventured into the realm of 3rd party lenses for my Pentax gear. This is partially because of Pentax's SMC coatings, and partially because Pentax brand lenses maintain their resale values better, and I am one of those who likes to trade around through the line. But my perception is that at least once you leave the kit lenses behind, the rest of Pentax's assortment is of generally higher quality than the third party gear.
