Scott, When lens shopping 3 or 4 years ago, I had both the 24-90 and the 28-70/4 for a week. I ran through a roll of Ektachrome with each. It took only about 5 minutes of looking at the slides to send the 28-70 back--the 24-90 was WAY better in sharpness, contrast, and light fall-off; and the extra 4mm at the wide end is more than you would think.
There seems to have been enormous sample variation with the 28-70s, so maybe I got one of the dogs. Still, that sort of variation is disturbing. Rick --- Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just to add to my reputation for being cheap, I keep > coming across > references to the FA28-70 f4. From what I've read, > quite a few people > really like this lens. The only down side that I've > discovered so far > is that some of them suffer from delamination. > Would anyone who has, > or has had, one of these care to comment? > > On 1/31/06, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Howdy! > > > > I'm considering enabling myself with a new zoom > lens or two. While I > > don't really use zooms that much for my personal > photography, I've > > been offered a handful of wedding jobs and am > looking at some faster > > (f2.8) lenses. Pentax lenses would normally be my > choice, but they > > seem to be expensive and rather hard to find these > days. Does anyone > > have an opinion on zooms in the 24-90mm range > (give or take) from > > Sigma, Tamron and Tokina? > > > > -- > > Scott Loveless > > http://www.twosixteen.com > > > > -- > > "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman > > > > > -- > Scott Loveless > http://www.twosixteen.com > > -- > "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
