GOOD 0.0000000 838feff9a301aaf2056953d55a6693a2
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Scott Loveless wrote:
That's four for the Tamron, one for the Sigma, and one for the
FA24-90. I've been reading reviews about these lenses and most of
them tend to be favorable. It's interesting to note that I haven't
been able to find one negative review of the FA24-90. In fact, I
found a Shutterbug review by Peter Burian in which he writes "I would
happily continue using this zoom for my professional stock
photography, because many of my slides would satisfy demanding photo
buyers." So I have one more lens to consider. Thanks, Rick, for the
suggestion. And thanks to everyone else, as well.
I have this, but none of the others and my photography is pedestrian,
so don't take me seriously. However, 90/4.5 (is it actually 4.5
from 50?) may not be what you set out to find. Also, I seem to recall
Herb suggesting that the 24-90 is not as brilliant on the -D as it is
on film; see below for his picky comments.
Another parameter I would seriously consider in this comparison is the
minimum focussing distance. It has bitten me twice, with the F35-135
and with my Soligor 100/2 (the latter one is a *real* pity); also with
the M85/2, to a lesser extent.
Good luck!
Kostas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Feb 21 22:06:42 2005
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:05:24 -0500
From: Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Manual Focus Pentax Glass on istD
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:05:35 -0500
Resent-From: [email protected]
not sharp enough. the FA 24-90 is one example. shooting Provia, it isn't
easily distinguishable from any other excellent prime or zoom like the FA
50/2.8 Macro or the FA* 80-200/2.8. with Velvia, with good technique, it
shows a little less sharpness. on the *istD, the 1.5x crop factor turns a
very good lens into an average one. that's not good enough and i don't use
the FA 24-90 anymore except when i need a light set of 3 lenses to cover
from 16 to 320mm. if weight is less of an issue, i would rather carry the
FA* 28-70/2.8, or perhaps the set of 3 Limiteds and the FA* 80-200/2.8 and
the FA* 400/5.6. the FA* 24/2, of course, has the chromatic aberration i
don't like. i got rid of all my Sigma lenses, except the 12-24, for
sharpness, bokeh, and chromatic aberration reasons. the 12-24 shows all of
the above effects, but not to the degree of the other Sigmas. if there were
a Pentax 12mm, whether prime or zoom, i would replace the Sigma. the DA
14/2.8 isn't sharp enough for my liking.
none of these conclusions of mine are based more than seeing the effect of
the 1.5x crop factor of the sensor. i don't have single examples to show of
any of these. they are the results of observing my best lenses on both film
and digital bodies and seeing which of my lenses are the worst with each.
anything too much worse than my best, i put away, like the 24-90, waiting
for the occasional roll of film i shoot, or for the day a full frame digital
from Pentax finally arrives, or i sell.
the FA 50/2.8 Macro, FA* 80-200/2.8, and the DA 16-45/4 are my benchmarks.
if i can look at a 100% image from any other lens and can see a sharpness
difference immediately, then it's not good enough. if i have to compare
carefully to see a difference, then i keep the lens. wide open performance
isn't as critical as f8-f11 performance. since i am almost always on a good
tripod system, vibration movement isn't an issue.
Herb...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Manual Focus Pentax Glass on istD
In what way aren't they acceptable? Can you provide an example?
