On Aug 11, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Juan Buhler wrote:
You recommended the 20-35 before. I didn't go for that, because
zoom-wise, I'm ok with the 16-45. I just wanted a prime lens, mostly
because of the size. It's probably psychological, but I still feel
self-conscious when shooting people with a big zoom. I understand the
20-35 is compact for a zoom, but still, the 28 should be a lot
smaller.
I know what you mean ... the 16-45 is bulky and awkward when used at
its wide end. The 20-35 is quite different: Both the FA28/2.8 and
FA35/2 are very small and light, but not *that* much smaller and
lighter than the 20-35... as comparison...
lens-------DxL in mm::weight-grams
-------------------------------------------
FA28/2.8---64x41::185g
FA35/2-----64x46::200g
FA20-35/4--68x68::244g
DA16-45/4--72x92::365g
And the 20-35 only extends about 1/4 inch on zooming, unlike the
16-45 which opens up another inch and a half, if not more.
No matter. The FA28 should be an excellent choice. I look forward to
hearing your comments about it.
BTW:
Buy a Kalt or other generic brand screw in metal lens hood for the
FA28 ... the standard one for a 50mm lens designed for 35mm cameras
works great, without vignetting, on lenses down to 24mm for the D/DS.
The Pentax hood for the FA28mm is larger than needed.
Godfrey
