Hey Rob! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:15 AM Subject: RE: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:Wideangle Dilemmas
--------------------------------------------- > It appears we can all come up with reviews to support our views. <--snip--> (and fair remarks) >You need far > more detail if you are to draw anything from these figures. ------------------------------------------------ > The only true comparison is if you shoot both at 24mm of the exact same > subject at the same exposure settings on the same camera at the same > time. I doubt if any group test would have put these two back to back. Well, I had another MZ-S and the FA* 24/2, I would, and I have just the guy who can tell us what is what. (uh-oh ;)) Well, it wouldn't be hard to find someone to use them side by side, having a trusted pro that both agree on do the work, all equal, take the shots. Then look at them. Pro looks. Same? Differrent? Go high power mag? Difference now? Blow the suckers up, difference? If the guy says well, one is better this way, the other here....what do you have, like I said, basically the same thing. One's cheaper, but they are close, so want that f2 or fixed, or want the zoom and wider angle? Choose on that. > However the FA*24/2 is semi-legendary in the industry and there must be > a good reason for that. Its not like it can be due to Pentax marketing, > is it? Is there such a thing as Pentax marketing? ;-) Comes down to I never said the Zoom was better, was throwing out thoughts, ideas, considerations, biases in the group. If you pressed me to buy just for quality even if it only shows with an electron microscope), with my limited knowledge, I'd go with the FA* 24/2. It's nice, I would have had it now if I hadn't got Pentax Canada involved in getting me the lens like I did. I found out after that it was cheaper. I figured it would be a heck of a lot more money. Why is it so cheap anyhow? (innocent question) anyone know? Regards, Brad > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:sylwek@;ozon.com.pl] > > Sent: 14 November 2002 13:43 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL > > WAS -- Re:Wideangle Dilemmas > > > > > > on 14.11.02 13:58, Brad Dobo at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Brad, > > [cut] > > > But to the core of the matter. 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 think you are right. SMC-FA 20-35/4 is very good lens. > > According to prestigeuos German's magazine "Foto Magazin" > > this is one of the best super wide angle zooms on the market, > > superceded only by Nikkor 17-28/2.8. It has grade 9.6 (of 10) > > for optical performance and 9.0 for build quality. FA* 24/2 > > had only 9.0 for opticals, and 9.6 (as I remember) for mechanics! > > > > -- > > Best Regards > > Sylwek > > > > > > > > >
