Yes, I recall that Rob had a somewhat negative comment about the lens, which is what prompted the question. Thanks for the remainder about WW's comment as well.
I'm looking to replace the K20/4.0, which replaced the infamous "Bow Wow" Super Tak 20/4.5, both of which provided satisfactory, if not stellar, results for me. Although, in many situations, people had no idea the pic was made with such "crummy" optics <LOL> Shel > [Original Message] > From: Joseph Tainter > Shel, this is reputed to have the same optical formula as the FA 20 > f2.8, which I have. > > Some time back Rob Studdert complained of corner softness at larger > apertures on the A. Wheatfield retorted that it is probably as good in > the corners as anyone else's 20. > > I have to say that I don't see corner weakness on mine, even at f2.8, > where I use it a lot indoors. Maybe the optical formula of the FA > version isn't the same after all. Note, though, that this observation is > on digital. > > If you go to Photodo, you will see that the FA 20 rates higher than the > offerings from Nikon, Canon, and Minolta. Only a Zeiss offering (IIRC) > rates better, but it costs several times as much. So I believe it is as > good as it can be at the price (which is not small for a new one). I > also think that the FA version is built just fine. > > I am very happy with the lens. It is part of my standard kit. > > Joe
