>> I think that 90mm at the long end might be a little short for the my >> usual "family photos" situation, but thanks for the suggestion. I think >> that the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 might be a better bet.
> The 28-105 is a darn good lens for the money. I'd have to say, however, > that the 24-90 outperforms it at 70mm+ focal lengths when wide open. > Stopped down 1-2 stops, the results are nearly impossible to tell apart. Hmmm... You've given some food for thought, Godfrey - maybe I'll have to look into that 24-90 some... > Be aware that the difference in field of view between 90 and 105mm is > quite small. See http://homepage.mac.com/godders/2zmFoVcomp.jpg for > comparison. The real advantages of the 24-90 are much more field of view > at the wide and and better performance when wide open at the tele end. Yes, I can see that. However, for what I'm mostly looking for (a lot of informal child portraits), it's not the wide end but the long end that is likely to be "bumped into" most of the time with a "something-to-90" or a "something-to-90" zoom, even on an APS DSLR like the DS. (The 28-200 actually does quite well - surprisingly well - I just wish it had a little more speed.) Thanks for your thoughts... Now, lemme see what Boz's site has on that 24-90... Fred
