The old Pentax Power Zoom 28-105mm was indeed of decent optical quality - I took loads
of very good pictures with it, but in terms of mechanical finish it was crap -
very plastickry - and when it fell some 30 centimeters off a table in Venice during
the Carnival, the chip responsible for data exchange with the body failed and had to
be
replaced for the lens to recover.
Otherwise it was a great lens
Greetings
Jarek
Raimo Korhonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa� / wrote:
> Two reasons: 28 is not wide enough and 24-90 has much better quality which is
reflected on the price. BTW the best 28-105 seems to be the elderly Pentax Power Zoom
version.
> Actually a good quality 24-70 would be OK for me because I have observed that most
>of
the time I don�t need any longer than that (but the extra 20 mm is good to have - and
a
good 24-105 would be even better).
> The diminishing apertures are mostly due to size and weight considerations: the
3.5/35-105 weighs 615 g (heavy!) and the 24-90 only 375 g. And it really is easier to
design a slow good quality lens which would also be cheaper to manufacture.
> The choice of focal lengths is a very personal one - what works for me does not
necessarily work for you.
> All the best!
> Raimo
> Personal photography homepage at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen
>
> -----Alkuper�inen viesti-----
> L�hett�j�: Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> P�iv�: 25. kes�kuuta 2001 18:19
> Aihe: Re: SMC A 35-105 vs. SMC FA 24-90
>
>
> >On Mon 2001-06-25 (18:12), Raimo Korhonen wrote:
> >> I have both lenses and I also did a little comparison. The lenses have
> >> quite similar quality, the 24-90 perhaps having a little bit more
> >> contrast and sharpness. The difference is not big but the new lens is
> >> much lighter (due to more plastics) and much more versatile. The 24-90
> >> is my new favourite, expensive but worth it.
> >
> >Why this one and not e.g. the 28-105?
> >
> >And a different, general question:
> >
> >Why do newer lenses offer inferior aperture values? I thought that new
> >materials and formulas could permit for brighter lenses?
> >
> >In fact I was told that the maximum aperture does not depend on the
> >quality or groups of the lenses, but only on geometry (front lense,
> >length)?
> >
> >I do not get this point, since the 35/105 is labeled 'f/3.5' for the full
> >range.
> >
> >The new lenses are
> >FA 24-90/3.5-4.5
> >FA 28-105/3.2-4.5
> >
> >Regards
> >Martin
> >
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jagged Alliance 2,5 Unfinished Business PL ju� w sprzeda�y!
Kliknij < http://gry.wp.pl/opisy/jagged_alliance_2.html >
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
