Peter, > FA-J 18-35 is another story. As focal length decreases so does the > quality. At 35mm some of the shots are actually quite good but I don't > have any at around 18mm. Probably I can still make a passable A5 print > from them, but they definively lack the qualities of the pictures > produced by both fixed 50s. I haven't compared them with anything > comparable so it may be quite normal behaviour (it's certainly harder to > make a wide lens than normal/short tele), but the difference is > substantial. While I enjoy peeping (!) at pixels (!) from those fixed > 50s I can't say this about shots from 18-35, especially from the wide > end. My istDs seems to share my opinion, because it doesn't autofocus > properly at wide end (manually focused images are much sharper). It > looks that I have two options - either buy a fast, fixed wide (AKA the > expensive option) or stick with film and M28/3.5 which is what I'll > probably do (Did I say that I also enjoy peeping at the slides with the > help of an magnifying glass? ;-). > > This is the final part of my observations. Hopefully they weren't too > boring and too Engrish...
The FAJ 18-35 sample I have is very sharp on wide end, even reasonably sharp fully open. You may have a bad sample. If you wish I can send you some full size JPEGS from my *istD shot with this lens. Having said that of course I cannot dispute the fact that 50 mm lenses give better image quality. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
