Michele, You stand a better chance of doing what you want with a f/2.8 constant aperture lens than you do with an f/4 but f/2.8 lenses at those focal lengths are pretty expensive. Not that the FA 20-35 f/4 is exactly cheap, either. If cost is a major consideration, you could go with a Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 and save a lot of money. Don't like fisheyes? Correct the perspective with PhotoShop, assuming that you have a scanner and a computer available.
Len --- -----Original Message----- From: MPozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF Sorry to interject but as someone's already asked about this lens (which I am really interested in) I am also curious about the depth of field for FA 20 - 35 in particular, but also the 17-35. Not having any lenses that go below 24mm, and wanting to have tpossibility to blur background beyond 2-3 meters behind tghe subject which is close, I was wondring how these 2 lenses fared. Michele - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
