I have the 28-105/3.2-4.5 AL IF and have also used the 24-90/3.5-4.5.
Both of these are very good performers, with the 24-90 edging out the
28-105 wide open at 70mm and above.
I went with the 28-105 as it is half the price, smaller, and the
performance difference is relatively small for my use. I do like the
24-90's wider view and quality wide open a bit more, but not enough
to pay the tariff.
How they compare with the A35-105/3.5 I couldn't tell you, but I know
I much prefer having the AF option and the compact size/light weight
of the 28-105. Looking at your photograph, it doesn't look any
different from what I get with the 28-105 @5.6 on similar subject
matter.
Godfrey
On Oct 1, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Don Sanderson wrote:
I'd really like to replace my A35-105/3.5 with something
smaller and lighter, maybe even AF.
So I go take a couple of sample pics with the D to show
on eekBay.
Then I can make the big bucks!
Problem is that the sample pics are so good I change
my mind again.
Does anyone have a suggestion for a replacement for
this very large, heavy, positively _gorgeous_ lens?
Here's a sampe full frame and 100% crop:
http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/7757.htm
ist-D at 1/125th and 105mm at f:5.6, ISO 400.
From .JPG's.
Don
