Hi David ... Nice overview. Thanks! Shel
> [Original Message] > From: David Oswald > Subject: Re: FA 20~35 > > I had the FA20-35 from 1999 through the near present (2005). I really > liked the lens. On film, I found it to be extremely sharp, with smooth > bokeh, and generally excellent qualities. Particularly surprising is > its very low level of barrol and/or pincushion distortion even at the > wide end. It seems to present a fairly 'flat' view of the world around > it, even at 20mm. > > When I bought my *ist-DS, it became my most-used "standard" lens for a > time. But I ultimately found myself swapping it out with the 50mm f/1.4 > and 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 very frequently because its zoom range isn't all > that broad. I also kind of yearned for a lens that could give me at > least the a field of view equivilant to that provided by a 24mm lens on > a film SLR, on my DSLR. With the 20-35 as my only true wide-angle lens, > I just couldn't get wide enough on the 'DS. > > So I sold it and bought a lens with a little broader zoom range: the > respectable DA16-45 f/4. I like the 16-45 because it will get me down > to a pretty wide angle field of view, as well as in to the not-so-tight > portrait focal lengths. But this choice did involve comprimise. > > The positives about the 16-45: > * Wide angle field of view (equivilant FOV of a 24mm lens used in > 35mm format). > * Moderate telephoto. > * Broader zoom range than the 20-35 = less lens swapping. > * Very sharp, great contrast, flare control, and low CA. > * Excellent build quality. > * Smooth zoom and focusing rings. Focus shift feature! > > The negatives of the 16-45: > * It's just a little too big. > * It has slightly more barrol distortion at 20mm than the 20-35... > but not much. > * It's heavier than the 20-35. > * Some don't like its reverse-zoom design. I don't mind. > * It isn't designed for 35mm film cameras, and will vingette on a > 35mm camera if zoomed wider than about 20 or 22mm. This is not an issue > on DSLR's. > > > The positives of the 20-35: > * Fairly compact. > * Very sharp, low distortion, etc. > * Light weight. > * Smooth focus and zoom. > * Moderately wide to normal zoom range. > * Designed for film, plus works for digital. > > The negatives of the 20-35: > * Not wide enough; you'll need a new ultrawide. > * Not telephoto enough; only zooms to "standard" focal lengths when > mounted on a DSLR. > > > The fact is, I find myself swapping lenses less with the 16-45, and I'm > equally satisfied with its image quality as compared to the 20-35. But > I miss the size and weight of the 20-35, and though I haven't shot film > since going digital, I kind of wish I had a film ultrawide just for the > sake of having one. (silly, I know).
