On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Mike Ignatiev wrote: > Chris, > > It's not that easy for me: > > I am not sure I care much for 24/2 for several reasons > -- it's twice as big and heavy > -- it uses 67 filters (IIRC) > -- it has longer min focusing distance > -- I am not sure that f/2 is a real advantage over f/2.8: I don't have trouble >focusing, and being 24mm, it's mostly used at f/8+. If there were 24/4 half the size >and weight of f/2.8 and at least as sharp, I'd jump on it! > -- which also means that AF is of dubious advantage -- pretty much everything is in >focus anyway. Besides everyone's saying that that KAF3 is coming <VBG> > > OTOH, for super wide angle, matrix metering would probably be very > useful (at least, center-weighted is next to useless -- but I use a > handheld meter with it anyway).
Just to nitpick, it's technically called "multi-segment" metering, or something similar; "matrix" is a trademark Nikon term, AFAIK. Personally, I find multi-pattern systems pretty much useless at super wide angles. There's so much in the frame that I have no idea how the meter is weighing the importance of difference segments. Center-weighted metering systems are very easy to understand once you spend enough time with them. > So unless FA 24/2 hugely outperforms A24/2.8, I see it having many > cons and very few pros... Well, I've heard some very good things about the 24/2, but I have no experience with it myself. Here's a different way to look at the question: if you had no 24mm lens but wanted to buy one, and you came across a shop that had both the K24/28 and the A24/2.8 for the same price, which one would you buy? chris
