I didnt say the Pantax wasnt good - but so is the Sigma. Its a toss up between a wider angle and aperture and SMC protection. Thus your choice depends on your personal criteria.
> -----Original Message----- > From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 06 March 2002 15:45 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF > > > On 6 Mar 2002 at 15:03, Rob Brigham wrote: > > > I would disagree here, almost every review I have read fits my > > experience. The Sigma is one fine lens. Much sharper than the > > pentax, although the edges are a bit soft till you stop down. > > I find this hard to believe. The Pentax FA 20-35/4 is on par > (at least) with any other lens I own, and that includes some > star lenses and Limiteds. I regular make 8x10's and > 11x14's from shots taken wide open. It's very sharp. > > Having said that, there was a report a couple years ago > stating that there were some sample variation problems. > > tv > - > 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 . - 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 .
