Cameron, I'm one of those guys who saw great results from the FA*24 on film. I was worried about the lens until I saw Stan using it on his digital body in one of the photos posted to the list. That's good enough for me. And I have yet to see bad digital results from it. Perhaps I'll run some tests against the A24/2.8. At f2, it's easier to focus. Regards, Bob S.
On 8/20/05, Cameron Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I find it hard to believe that people have such mixed feelings about > this lens - either there are some batch to batch discrepancies (highly > unlikely), or (more likely) some of the posters really don't know what > they are talking about, and just find they aren't getting the results > they are after, probably from their own deficiencies, not the lens'. > Wide angle lenses are perhaps the most difficult to use; I know it took > me several years of shooting before I really liked this lens. But now, > you'd have to shoot me to get it off me. > > I have a collection of FA* lenses, as well as an FA 50mm macro and a DA > 14mm, and I can tell you from vast experience that this is one of the > sharpest and most detailed lenses in the entire Pentax lineup. The > results from this lens are nothing short of stunning, provided you use > proper techniques, good film, and you are not using a vibration prone > PZ1 - PZ1P. On the *ist-D, the results are absolutely stunning. > Occasionally, you will get some CA in extremely high contrast areas - > in most cases, it does not print, or it is to fine to see unless you > jam the print right up to your face, and if you shoot RAW, you can > correct it. I have stunning, grain-free highly-detailed prints at > 24"x36" with this combination. I have beautiful prints hand held at iso > 800 at 13x19", as well. > > One of the greatest lenses ever. Extremely low distortion, and even > less on digital than on film because you are just using the centre of > the lens elements. Shoot at F8 and it is sharp from 1.5' to infinity - > you don't even have to focus. > > I delayed getting a DSLR for almost 2 years because people on this list > said that this lens was 'terrible on digital'; really really bad CA, > oh, my god. I didn't want to lose the use of my favorite lens, the 24, > so I didn't buy a digital camera. I now feel stupid for having believed > them so completely, and I missed out on 2 years of digital shooting > because of it, not to mention the thousands of dollars I spent on film > in the meantime. My advice is: don't listen to them - make up your own > mind. I can only tell you my experience. > > When I finally did get an *ist D, and went shooting with the 24, I was > stunned at the results; they approach or exceed the quality of medium > format prints that I have seen. Detail and resolution that I always > wanted but never got from film. Ever since then, I don't listen to > posters on this list, or I at least take them with a (great big) grain > of salt. Most of them were proven incredibly and completely WRONG by my > experience. > > If you'd like some jpegs that will simply blow you away from this lens, > drop me a line. > > Get a 24, and make up your own mind. You can always sell it if you > don't like it; there are a LOT of people who would love this > magnificent lens. Most decent camera stores will either lend you, or > sell you on spec the lens to try out before you buy it. > > Personally, I WON'T be selling mine; I will be bequeathing it to some > lucky bastard in my will. > > Thanks, > > Cameron > >
