What I hear is talk about the quality of this lens, but what I don't see are comparison pics and the details of the comparison. What size prints were your friends making? How were they processed? Some people work @ 100% when using Photoshop, others don't. Comparing Rob's pics in PS, the differences are obvious @ 100% but not so obvious @ screen size, and the images are, to my eyes and on my monitor, virtually indistinguishable at 33% So, how are you friend's images viewed on screen. What size prints do they make, and how are the images processed. Have the same scenes been compared and been taken on a camera-mounted tripod? There are too many variables that are not defined when people say that a lens is good/bad.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > My friend in Gloucester uses the FA24/2 AL quite a lot and likes it > very much. I was using my A24/2.8 a similar amount. Seems the 24/2 > reports I've read are quite variable, but Richard's work with that > lens seems virtually indistinguishable from my work with the A24/2.8. > Another friend bought and used the FA24/2 for a few weeks and sold it > as unsatisfactory. (All of this with D and DS bodies.) Hard to figure > what to make of the variability in the 24/2, it's certainly not an > inexpensive lens. > > Your two photos show rather large differences between the corner/edge > quality at f/2.8. What do you see at more normally used wide angle > apertures, like f/5.6-f/11? > > Godfrey >
