> -----Original Message----- > From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo@;rogers.com] > > 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 ;))
Careful - you may just get 'enabled'! > 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. I may not be a pro (or even a good amateur), but I have used both on my MZ-S and drew my conclusions from slide projection and 4000dpi scanning. > 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. Yeah, one is better at 24mm, the other is better at all other focal lengths between 20 and 35 ;-) > > 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? ;-) My point exaclty! > Comes down to > I never said the Zoom was better, was throwing out thoughts, > ideas, considerations, biases in the group. Ah, it appears I misunderstood you then. I hope you don't see me as biased against zooms either - I have 8 of them to 2 primes. > 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. You see I already had the Sigma 17-35 which while not as good as the 20-35 is very good and goes wider. Most of my wide shots tend to be at either 17mm or 24mm. So it made sense for me to get the best 24mm and stick with the sigma for a versatile 17! FWIW I wouldn't buy the 24 without also having a wide zoom, but 20 is not wide enough for me. > 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? Its not that cheap in the UK! The 24 is �539 and the 20-35 is �439!
