> 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.
What I really hate is the prime crap that goes on in lists and groups. Fixed-focal or Zoom. No, wide zooms are in fact largely unpopular. It's only people like us that may but them and we don't make up much of Pentax profits. Everyone likes to think I don't know anything, too bad for you, I talk to those that do, a number of them. A quality wide zoom is just as good as a fixed one. > 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. Both you can still order. Both are being discontinued. > > 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. Hardly on the price, and yes, I hood does help take better pictures, you aren't going to debate that are you?, tells you something of the value the company places the lens at. > > 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. Tosh back at you, we have a large group that wants metal and something heavy. > > 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? Goes with the statements above it. > > > 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. Hardly. Do you know the price on the FA* Zoom 250-600mm f/5.6 ED [IF]??? Or the A* 1200mm f/8 ED [IF] or the M Reflex 2000mm F/13.5? Could you afford one of them? Does that Zoom lens above suck? ED glass is not a marketing label. It's very different from all the cherished lenses mentioned in here with God-like status that are 20 years old. > > But to the core of the matter. > > At last. Now now, you don't just start with the core. Where is the core of the Earth? The centre? Middle? > > 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. See, I put no value at all on thinks like this photodo mtf stuff. Sorry. Too many unanswerable questions come up from looking at that, if you think beyond the pixels on the screen, examine the source, how they did it, what equipment tested these, what statistical procedures were used and are they suitable, press me and I'll come up with a hundred more, and they're all valid :) For a zoom. Zooms of old got bad names because they were not good, consumer zoom now are much better, better than you fixed 20 year lens guys would like to admit, and the higher end zooms are just as good as a quailty fixed. I've had that drilled into my head from a few hard expert (or close) sources, none here, certainly not on the web! > > 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! No, I said this group puts the F number so high. You are telling them they think it's rubbish. I was told the processing and grinding and type of glass used for the AL is different from the older AL. Not the SMC coats. (But they could be too for all I know) > > Anyone? Or are Reps just stupid? > > Do you need to ask that question? I just wanted to see if someone would come out and stay they were, which would tell me something important indeed, but I won't say it here. > > 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. I tried not to either, frankly, looks like we both did a poor job of it, but oh well. I may not be the expert, but I get the experts opinions, outside the company and inside. My one source at Pentax has grown now to two sources. No making fun of sources, Pal uses the words in every email! Cheers, Brad
