Hi Joseph > I believe Popular Photography tested the FA 35 several years ago -- > so along ago that it is not one of the tests posted on their web > site. As I recall, and going on others' experiences with the lens, > it is a bit soft at f2 but spectacular thereafter -- nearly (but not > quite) as good as the FA 31. It is now quite popular as a "normal" > lens for the D or DS. Maybe hard to find too.
Yes they tested it, maybe I should order a back copy/reprint. I can cope with the softness wide open, there's probably a little light fall off also but nothing to be concerned over. I believe it's popularity with the DSLR's is what's keeping the prices so high. > How is your Tamron at 35 mm and f2.8? If it is okay there, do you > need a soft f2? I've not given the Tamron much use yet but expect it will have a serious workout shortly I've got a large amount of group shots to do at work and 35mm might just fit the bill nicely. I'm not really concerned about the faster aperture but can see your point about a soft f/2, image quality is the main aim - I've always liked primes. > Other than f2 the FA 35 would almost certainly give superior results, > but you might notice them only at extreme enlargement. That Tamron > is very good. I think I'll carry on looking, maybe find one at the right price :) Meanwhile I'll run some film past the Tamron. Thanks for the comments. John
