That's a VERY distinct difference, even at 20%! Is this the FA* 24/2 AL [IF] we're talking about?
Some of the image doesn't make sense, like the branches over the bridge near the center of the frame. Looks more like motion blur or shallow DOF. The water in the foreground of 5497 also indicates some wind or vibration, could this be a factor? Considering its reputation this is a terrible showing for the 24/2. I very nearly bought one too! ;-( Don (NOW looking for an A24/2.8) ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:11 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: FA24/2.0 on Ds - example > > > On 19 Jun 2005 at 21:32, Jens Bladt wrote: > > > Hi Bob > > What problems? > > I have used this lens for close-up journalistic work. > > (I have discovered, that pro's use a wide angle and then go > very close to > > the subject. > > Brilliant and very sharp lens - even at F.2 - IMO. > > Some people can live within it's limitations others can't, rather > than have an > it's good it's bad round again why not check out the following > two pics, they > are full resolution so they are about 3.7MB each. Both were shot > on a tripod on > the same body, both at f2.8 and both carefully manual focussed. > In short test > finalized my decision to sell my FA24.2 lens(s). Without looking > at the EXIF > data can you tell which image was shot with the FA24/2 and which was the > A24/2.8? > > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP5497.jpg > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP5502.jpg > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >
