I didn't think the B&H size spec was correct ... but the 35/2 is
small enough already for me. (yes, that came out somewhat ambiguous
the way I worded it. ;-)
No, I don't own the FA20. I use the FA20-35/4 instead, I have the
FA35/2 too. I might want a 28 or a 20, haven't decided yet. I do wish
they made an FA24/2 or 2.8 that wasn't huge, as that would be an
immediate choice. I'll most likely have the 14, 20-35 and 50 with me
at the Norcal PDML gathering.
Godfrey
On Sep 30, 2005, at 7:24 AM, Juan Buhler wrote:
Boz' site lists 45mm for the FA35 and 43.5mm for the FA20... that's
about 0.05 inches difference, no? Unless you count the hood in the
FA35. And, the FA20 has a huge 67mm filter size, compared to 49mm of
all the other lenses we've discussed.
...
But the FA20 doesn't sound bad. Do you have it? Would you bring it to
the PDML meet in SF next week?
On 9/30/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am not sure how large the M50/2 is, but B&H lists the FA20/2.8 as
1.7" long and 2.7" diameter. That's an inch shorter than the FA35/2,
which is small enough for me. ;-)
