First you're gonna love and use either lens a lot.
But they are different. I do a lot of point and shoot with my istD. The
FA20-35 is always with me and I have plenty of options on the shelf.
If you spend a lot of your time on thoughtful, composition and like the
perspective the 35 will give with the crop factor, then the 35 would be a
great choice.
As an afterthought...
Oddly, the 35/2 is one of the few primes I am missing. I won't buy it now
because I don't enjoy the "50mm" perspective and I am using my istD almost
exclusively. If digital had never happened I am sure I would have this
lens. If you realllllly think your gonna shoot a lot of film, that may be a
reason to buy it. I put TriX in a ZX5n with the FA77. It is just pretty.
I shot most of the roll but this is the first time in months I've shot film.
I haven't developed it yet.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: FA 20~35 or FA35/2.0
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
