Hi Shel,
I'm not familiar with the FA 20-35/4, but I do have the FA 35/2. It's probably
my most used prime. A wonderful lens and fast enough for indoor shooting. I
supplement it with the DA 16-45/4, which is probably comparable to the FA
20-35, although considerably larger and with a lot more range. I find I use it
in a much different way than I use the 35/2: outdoors and generally in
situations where I'm not sure what focal length I'll need. I've shot a number
of outdoor events with it. I think it's comparable to the FA 35/2 in image
quality at 35mm at f5.6 or smaller, perhaps even at f4, but those lost stops
make it a different animal.
Paul
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi Gang ...
>
> I've decided that these two lenses are on the A-list for consideration as
> the first new lenses for the DS. I'm primarily a prime shooter, but over
> the years have come to appreciate the short, wide, M24~35 zoom, so the
> FA20~35 seems like it would be just fine.
>
> Both lenses are about the same price @ B&H, so there's no price incentive
> to get one over the other. The 35/2.0 looks to be somewhat smaller and
> lighter than the 20~35, but not so much so that it would be a major
> consideration. The extra speed of the 35mm is a plus, but then so is the
> wider option on the zoom. IOW, it's a bit off a tossup which lens to get
> first.
>
> The only thing I'm unsure of is how their optical qualities compare. How's
> the zoom wrt distortion at the wide and long end, in fact, let's just
> addresss the long end, and compare their performance @ 35mm. Is there a
> noticeable difference between the two lenses, and if so, in what areas?
>
> Right now it's a tough decision as my budget is constrained. I like the
> idea of the smaller, faster prime, but the wider focal length range of the
> zoom is a big factor.
>
> So, what are your thoughts?
>
>
> Shel
>
>
>
