Brad, One big factor you are forgetting is speed of lens and for the zooms, constant aperture. Your new lens is constant aperture whereas the 24-90 is not. Also the FA *24 is a stop and a half faster than your new lens. Also, generally speaking, when you start going wide, zooms have more barrel and pincushion distortion than primes. For many applications this does not matter, but for some it might.
The cost to gain a stop is significant and the cost to correct for distortion is significant. It drives the price up faster on a lens than would seem logical. HTH, Bruce Thursday, November 14, 2002, 4:58:32 AM, you wrote: BD> Gang! BD> I've heard different. An unimportant matter, but look at the cost is there BD> a price difference, I emailed Pentax Canada after I was told here the FA* BD> was cheaper, they gave me their list prices and they reflected that. BD> Another, you see a lens, a bunch, you look a the lowest f-stop number, it's BD> a seller despite what some may admit to. Many also group the SMCP FA BD> 28-70mm f/4 AL with the SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL. I have received different BD> word from Pentax, they are quite apart. The price between them is vast. I BD> got a hood with Pentax on it and a case, you get neither with the other. BD> Also, weight, despite what some may admit to, heavier the better. Bigger is BD> better (unless you really have to travel light, then that's another story) BD> I know many here that are into digital technology, computers, printers, and BD> really know their stuff. But this is a sort of 'old-fashioned' group. Now, BD> nothing wrong with that, but it's there. And really, when it really comes BD> down to crunch time, what's a star (*) worth? More money and everything BD> above. There's no ED glass, they probably designed and made the two AL BD> elements at the same time practically (that I cannot back up at all, but a BD> suspicion). A star (*) is a Nikon or Canon, etc, basically, all that stuff BD> above, and a colour change too. Add a star and you can suck in the big BD> buyers. I said, what's a star (*) worth? I didn't say it's worth nothing. BD> Just ponder things and don't pull up web tech specs. and all that. BD> But to the core of the matter. Which is better? The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL BD> or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL? I know the general opinion, and I just won't BD> comment. Except that any difference in image quality is small, very. BD> Perhaps related or perhaps not, someone educate me. Is a SMC the same as an BD> SMC? No working backwards, FA vs FA, they using a special SMC but don't BD> tell you it's a ESCM (Extra)? BD> Also, concerning the SMCP FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5 AL [IF], a Pentax Rep I BD> talked to said the formula/design/manufacture of this AL lens is a BD> completely new and higher quality. Anyone? Or are Reps just stupid? BD> My thoughts open for complete debate, no put-downs, insults, but nice civil BD> talk, chatty, friendly. BD> Brad BD> ----- Original Message ----- BD> From: "Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BD> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BD> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 2:10 AM BD> Subject: Re: Wideangle Dilemmas >> >> >> >> > My lens is solid. The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL. You probably have a 28mm >> > around, what's the big difference of 4 degrees? That much money? >> >> I have used both the FA 20-35mm f/4 AL and the FA*24/2 and the FA*24/2 is >> another league in regards to optical performance. >> >>
