If I was starting from scratch to cover the wide end and could only have one, then I might go for the 20-35. However I already had the Sigma 17-35 and to be honest I like this too. For a wideangle zoom the 20-35 just doesn't go wide enough. My compromise was for ultimate quality at the most used length, and a pretty good ultra wide zoom. I would not class the 20-35 as ultra wide. There are many pics that a 17 can make really well that a 20 just couldn't even attempt. See http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=94777 for an example or the type of thing I am talking about.
To summarise: The 20-35 is the best available one box compromise, but is not the master of either scenario - for optical quality you want a prime and for versatility you want to go wider. I await with interest the new ultra wide zooms from Pentax next year... > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Pentxuser@;aol.com] > Sent: 14 November 2002 16:13 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL > WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas > > > > In a message dated 11/14/02 8:03:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << 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 agree. I would go for the 20-35mm myself and try to pick up > a K24/2.8. > Although I love primes, I tend to use zooms more often... The > difference in > quality really does not matter for most of us... (Oh boy I > can't wait to see > the responses on this one.) > Vic > >
