I'm not sure what you're intimating, Shel.
Richard and I were out shooting and socializing for three/four days.
I was shooting with the A24/2.8 quite a bit, he was shooting similar
subjects with the FA24/2. He's using a D, I'm using a DS. Since I was
traveling and was not carrying my own computer with me, and I was
curious as to how the FA24 performed compared to my A24, I copied a
couple of my RAW files onto his computer system and we put them
through Rawshooter Essentials together. We looked at them scaled to
screen resolution and at 1:1 pixel resolution. Exposures and lighting
were virtually identical in both cases. We looked at my pictures and
his pictures in identical ways.
Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with this kind of
casual comparison? It's not a formal lens resolution test, just as
Rob's photos are not a formal resolution test.
Richard loves the FA24/2 and his pictures look great. He did mention
that he seems to get more chromatic aberration out of it at stopped-
down apertures with the digital body compared to his MZ-S. I don't
own one, find the A24/2.8 a very good performing lens, and have only
used it with the DS body to date. (Yes, one of these day's I'll fish
some of that film stuff out of my freezer and try it on my MX body...)
My other friend who had a 24/2 is someone who's photographic
judgement I've come to trust a lot ... he's been right on the money
with his opinions every time we've had a discussion, with good proof
to show for it. I was very interested when he bought the 24/2 as it
is a lens somewhat out of character for him ... he generally prefers
light, compact M and pre-M Pentax lenses. His complaints were poor
sharpness wide open and chromatic aberration stopped down. He found
it enough of a nuisance that he sold the lens off a few weeks later.
He's found the M24-35 a much better lens for his work. I've seen many
of his photos and I agree that it seems to suit him better.
My interest in this lens' quality and the variable reports I hear is
purely academic. I am not even remotely interested in purchasing a
24/2 as I consider it way too large and heavy for my taste.
Godfrey
On Jun 19, 2005, at 7:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
What I hear is talk about the quality of this lens, but what I
don't see
are comparison pics and the details of the comparison. What size
prints
were your friends making? How were they processed? Some people
work @
100% when using Photoshop, others don't. Comparing Rob's pics in
PS, the
differences are obvious @ 100% but not so obvious @ screen size,
and the
images are, to my eyes and on my monitor, virtually
indistinguishable at
33% So, how are you friend's images viewed on screen. What size
prints
do they make, and how are the images processed. Have the same
scenes been
compared and been taken on a camera-mounted tripod? There are too many
variables that are not defined when people say that a lens is good/
bad.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
My friend in Gloucester uses the FA24/2 AL quite a lot and likes it
very much. I was using my A24/2.8 a similar amount. Seems the 24/2
reports I've read are quite variable, but Richard's work with that
lens seems virtually indistinguishable from my work with the A24/2.8.
Another friend bought and used the FA24/2 for a few weeks and sold it
as unsatisfactory. (All of this with D and DS bodies.) Hard to figure
what to make of the variability in the 24/2, it's certainly not an
inexpensive lens.
Your two photos show rather large differences between the corner/edge
quality at f/2.8. What do you see at more normally used wide angle
apertures, like f/5.6-f/11?
Godfrey
