Thanks Godfrey! Your graphic puts the difference in good perspective - except at the wide end, the difference is fairly insignificant. I think I'll probably pick up the 28-105 when B&H open again, along with a hand-strap and polarizer. (All in all, I think the lesson is that I should spend less time worrying about gear and more time taking pictures.. but it's so fun, and what then would I do while at work?)
Odd about the 24/2 - http://stans-photography.info/Intro6.html has it listed as the top of the "favorite<sic> lenses of the PDML crowd". Maybe it's time we had a new poll - I'd love to see a tally of votes from the LBA on their favourite lenses for Pentax digital in various categories. (all-round, wide, standard, tele, wide-tele zoom, tele-zoom..) Thanks again for your help. jp >-----Original Message----- >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 12:36 PM >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >Subject: Re: Filling the 50-85mm gap. > >On Apr 21, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Jon Paul Schelter (R* Toronto) wrote: > >> I'd love to hear from anyone who has the 24-90 - *is* it worth the >> premium over the 28-105? >> the comments at Stan's (http://stans-photography.info/) are mostly >> positive, but don't answer my questions. Does anyone know >of any lens >> tests of either of these? > >I haven't see a response which addresses your question yet. > >While I haven't seen formal lens tests of the FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 >and FA 28-105/3.5-4.5, I did have access to a 24-90 for a few >exposures during the NorCal PDML gathering in March (thanks, >Patsy!). Conditions were far from ideal for lens testing >(indoors at a cafe, snapping pictures of people at ISO 400 and >800, hand-held) but examining them in comparison to similar >pictures taken under similar circumstances with the 28-105, >they are so similar in overall rendering, contrast and >sharpness as to be nearly indistinguishable. Build quality >didn't seem much different one to the other either. > >I would choose between them based on the focal length range >and price rather than the lens quality. The 28-105 nets a >little more reach at the expense of some wide-angle coverage, >which seems to be where my photography takes me more of the >time nowadays. The differences are modest... this little >graphic gives you a list of FoV at the zoom limits and a >picture display of the FoV difference on the *ist D/DS: > >http://homepage.mac.com/godders/2zmFoVcomp.jpg > >> * I'm a patient person, but they've had my money for a month now and >> can't tell me when or if I might see a lens. (During which time I've >> acquired two lenses from eBay - A 50/2, and a Tamron 70-300) maybe I >> should get the FA 24/2 in stead of the 35/2? AARGH. too many lenses, >> going away too quickly! > >As mentioned in another thread, the FA24/2 AL is a large and >heavy lens. Some people using it on the D/DS cameras have >found it to be less than satisfactory wide open and have some >chromatic aberration problems. > >Godfrey > >
