> -----Original Message----- > From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo@;rogers.com] > > Gang! > > I've heard different. An unimportant matter, but look at the > cost is there a price difference, I emailed Pentax Canada > after I was told here the FA* was cheaper, they gave me their > list prices and they reflected that.
Price does not necessarily dictate quality when you are comparing apples with oranges (or primes with zooms). A lot more elements, gearing or whatever gubbins is needed for a zoom which puts the cost up. Also, a wide zoom is a very popular buy so they can get away with charging more perhaps. > Another, you see a lens, > a bunch, you look a the lowest f-stop number, it's a seller > despite what some may admit to. Many also group the SMCP FA > 28-70mm f/4 AL with the SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL. I have > received different word from Pentax, they are quite apart. > The price between them is vast. Every lens is quite apart. The 28-70 F4 is a cracking little lens and was priced way below what it was worth. But as I said, these are different lenses - I would expect the 20-35 to be better at 28mm, but the 28-70 to be better at 70mm. Face it, standard range zooms sell cheaply unless they are F2.8 lenses. Wide angle zooms are accepted as being expensive and the aperture as being a compromise. That's just the marketplace and has nothing to do with the quality of the images created. Plus the 28-70 F4 was an old design dropped some time ago - the 20-35 is still for sale. > I got a hood with Pentax on > it and a case, you get neither with the other. Bully for you - does that make your lens take better pictures? Perhaps this accounts for some of the price difference you made so much of. > Also, weight, > despite what some may admit to, heavier the better. Bigger > is better (unless you really have to travel light, then > that's another story) Sorry, but that's complete tosh. Look at the use of new materials such as carbon fibre and magnesium these days, plus many modern plastics are very good. Granted there is often a correlation but that is largely coincidence and cannot be used as a guide to quality either of build or optics. > I know many here that are into digital > technology, computers, printers, and really know their stuff. > But this is a sort of 'old-fashioned' group. Now, nothing > wrong with that, but it's there. No opinion on this and not sure of its relevance here? > And really, when it really > comes down to crunch time, what's a star (*) worth? More > money and everything above. There's no ED glass, they > probably designed and made the two AL elements at the same > time practically (that I cannot back up at all, but a > suspicion). A star (*) is a Nikon or Canon, etc, basically, > all that stuff above, and a colour change too. Add a star > and you can suck in the big buyers. I said, what's a star > (*) worth? I didn't say it's worth nothing. Just ponder > things and don't pull up web tech specs. and all that. This is just made up mumbo jumbo. The model name is the model name - no big deal. ED glass or whatever is just a marketing label. You get good glass and not so good glass whether the manufacturer labels them differently or not. > But to the core of the matter. At last. > Which is better? The SMCP FA > 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL? I know the general > opinion, and I just won't comment. Except that any > difference in image quality is small, very. I disagree here. While the 20-35 is very good for a zoom, the 24 is unbelievably good for a prime. Night and day. Look at photodo for the mtf tests if you want. > Perhaps related or perhaps not, someone educate me. Is a SMC > the same as an SMC? No working backwards, FA vs FA, they > using a special SMC but don't tell you it's a ESCM (Extra)? Not all SMC is the same - there are different flavours. I don't know the details so I will let someone else fill this in. > Also, concerning the SMCP FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5 AL [IF], a > Pentax Rep I talked to said the formula/design/manufacture of > this AL lens is a completely new and higher quality. The lens formula/design/manufacture of most lenses is different. OK so some may have general family resemblances but that's about it. If you mean the SMC formula, then yes it is different. The limited lenses (I think all of them, certainly the 77) and the 24-90 all have a 'ghostless' SMC coating. This is the latest flavour and is supposedly better for contrast and flare resistance. I cannot tell you if the coating lives up to this, but the 24-90 and 77 are very good in both these and all other respects. This is despite the fact that the 24-90 is light and has a high minimum F number which in your book would make it rubbish! > Anyone? Or are Reps just stupid? Do you need to ask that question? > My thoughts open for complete debate, no put-downs, insults, > but nice civil talk, chatty, friendly. Hopeully that's what I have done. If any of this comes across as confrontational then I am sorry, but I just think your thoughts were largely incorrect and or badly formed.
