On Jun 30, 2005, at 4:48 PM, David Oswald wrote:
A 50mm is significantly longer than a 35, a 35 is much closer to
a 28. My dilemma is that I have a fast 50 and would like a fast
28, but f/2.8 is only one stop faster than the already excellent
20-35/4 and 28-105/3.2-4.5 ...
An FA28/2 would be so nice. sigh.
I guess that's kind of my point. I could get the 35 f/2. But I'd
rather get a 28mm lens as my standard lens. But the 28 f/2.8 is
only one stop faster than my 16-45, and only a half stop faster
than my 28-105 f/3.2-4.5. I know there are other benefits to a
prime, but I would like speed to be one of the reasons for going
with a prime.
My sentiments exactly; an FA 28 f/2 would be great.
Actually, given the size and (to me) awkwardness of the DA16-45, the
FA28/2.8 would be an easy pick. I like having a small, light, fast
lens to work with. (I sold my DA16-45 for this reason.)
But between the FA28/2.8 and FA20-35/4, the size and handling
difference is much much smaller: it really becomes a distinction
between 1 stop and performance differences. I don't know how much
better the performance of the FA28/2.8 is over the FA20-35/4 at 28mm
FL setting. I'd love to hear any comments on that...
I guess the obvious solution is the FA31 f/1.9. ...that's a little
more than I'm willing to spend on one lens, being just a hobbiest.
I had one. Great lens, just again too large and heavy ... I felt I'd
only rarely use it due to the size and sold it too; it was too
expensive to have languishing in a drawer.
Gdofrey
