I had the FA20-35 from 1999 through the near present (2005). I really
liked the lens. On film, I found it to be extremely sharp, with smooth
bokeh, and generally excellent qualities. Particularly surprising is
its very low level of barrol and/or pincushion distortion even at the
wide end. It seems to present a fairly 'flat' view of the world around
it, even at 20mm.
When I bought my *ist-DS, it became my most-used "standard" lens for a
time. But I ultimately found myself swapping it out with the 50mm f/1.4
and 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 very frequently because its zoom range isn't all
that broad. I also kind of yearned for a lens that could give me at
least the a field of view equivilant to that provided by a 24mm lens on
a film SLR, on my DSLR. With the 20-35 as my only true wide-angle lens,
I just couldn't get wide enough on the 'DS.
So I sold it and bought a lens with a little broader zoom range: the
respectable DA16-45 f/4. I like the 16-45 because it will get me down
to a pretty wide angle field of view, as well as in to the not-so-tight
portrait focal lengths. But this choice did involve comprimise.
The positives about the 16-45:
* Wide angle field of view (equivilant FOV of a 24mm lens used in
35mm format).
* Moderate telephoto.
* Broader zoom range than the 20-35 = less lens swapping.
* Very sharp, great contrast, flare control, and low CA.
* Excellent build quality.
* Smooth zoom and focusing rings. Focus shift feature!
The negatives of the 16-45:
* It's just a little too big.
* It has slightly more barrol distortion at 20mm than the 20-35...
but not much.
* It's heavier than the 20-35.
* Some don't like its reverse-zoom design. I don't mind.
* It isn't designed for 35mm film cameras, and will vingette on a
35mm camera if zoomed wider than about 20 or 22mm. This is not an issue
on DSLR's.
The positives of the 20-35:
* Fairly compact.
* Very sharp, low distortion, etc.
* Light weight.
* Smooth focus and zoom.
* Moderately wide to normal zoom range.
* Designed for film, plus works for digital.
The negatives of the 20-35:
* Not wide enough; you'll need a new ultrawide.
* Not telephoto enough; only zooms to "standard" focal lengths when
mounted on a DSLR.
The fact is, I find myself swapping lenses less with the 16-45, and I'm
equally satisfied with its image quality as compared to the 20-35. But
I miss the size and weight of the 20-35, and though I haven't shot film
since going digital, I kind of wish I had a film ultrawide just for the
sake of having one. (silly, I know).
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi Gang ...
Having used John Celio's FAJ 18~35 yesterday, and having found the focal
range to be very nice (reminds me a bit of the M24~35 that I like so much),
I'm thinking that I might want to get one after the replacement DS arrives
and I've had some time to use it. This seems to be a well regarded lens
here on the list.
Does anyone who is planning to attend the Pentax Pixel Party, or the Anti
Pixel Party, have one of these puppies (Godfrey, Juan?) that I could
examine for a bit?
Any comments on the build quality and construction from anyone else?
Shel
