> I have the original tests in front of me. Fotomagazin tested the FA20-35 > in August 1999. It was tested at 20, 26 and 35mm focal length, and at > the apertures f4 and f8. The FA*24/f2 was tested at f2 and f8 in 1992. > So the test results are hardly comparable. FotoMagzine gives curves for > "Sch�rfe" (sharpness) and "Brillianz". At f8 the curves for the FA*24/f2 > are slightly higher (better) than those of the FA20-35 at either 20 or > 26mm, however, the testing method may have changed. BTW: The optics of > the FA*24/f2 gets verdict of 8.8 for optics and 9.0 (out of 10) for > mechanics, whereas the FA20-35 gets 9.6 for optics and 9.0 for > mechanics. *****I think it is ridiculous to put these two lenses in the same > league meachnically. My conclusion is that Fotomagazin verdicts and > "supers" (the FA20-35 got one, the FA*24/f2 did not) are very > questionable.****** The curves themselves tell more.. > > Arnold
* are mine. Mechanically? Explain this? One will break the other won't? High-tech plastics and metal components on one are worst than another? I'm lost. Perhaps I don't know what 'mechanics' means in respect to a lens.
