-- Vasily Klyutchevsky, Russian historian > From: Larry Hodgson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Question 1: > > I assume that a prime lens of 50mm, let's say a FA 50 1.4, is always going > to be sharper than a FA 28-105 set at 50mm. Is this true, > assuming that both > were set at the same f-stop?
Yes and no. If you put both at a small stop, say f/22, diffraction will dominate both lenses regarding sharpness. At the lower stops, you will loose sharpness and contrast and experience more flair with the zoom. It's the necessary cost of passing the image through more glass. For most use, this is not usually noticed and in many situations the convenience of the zoom overshadows any losses (that are usually only seen by us anyway). > Question 2: > > Is a FA 100 2.8 Macro as sharp as a FA 135 2.8 at infinty for landscapes? Don't know. > Can I kill two birds with one stone by getting that Macro? Sometimes. One of the birds usually killed when opting for a fast macro is the wallet bird, the one that chirps "money, money, money". On the other hand, if you need the macro anyway... Regards, Bob... -------------------------------------------- "History is not a school-mistress. She does not teach. She is a prison matron who punishes for unlearned lessons."
