I did testing with the FA20-35 against the DA16-45 when I had both.
The latter is a fine lens, but I found the imaging qualities of the
FA20-35 more to my liking (and more similar to the FA35). The FA20-35
is much smaller and lighter than the DA16-45 ... it feels like a
prime rather than a big zoom. (It's actually not so much that it is
*that* much smaller as that it doesn't trombone noticeably in use,
and it weighs half as much, so the balance is a lot better in the hand.)
Godfrey
On May 16, 2006, at 7:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
