On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 03:45:46 +0200, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry Fred, I should have looked at mine.
I took the name directly from Boz's site.
You are correct, it DOES NOT say ED on the lens.
stock", still in the box, and it never seemed to live up to the
reputation
that some wanted it to have. I originally tried it out on film (manually
focusing it, but I recently tried it as an af lens on my DS, and it still
doesn't impress me. Sample-to-sample variance has been claimed for the
differing opinions on this lens, and so maybe that's it, and maybe I just
got a bad one...
Now that we're at it... I've had the power zoom FA70-200 for a couple of
years. I was quite happy with it, until I read that it was supposed to be
an absolute dog of a lens. Never touched it again, of course ;-)
I recently purchased the F70-210 bases on it's reputation, and I must say
that, to my amazement, I don't see a staggering difference between the two
in normal use. I've read this same comment (from someone who used the
side-by-side) somewhere on the 'net as well, recently.
Now either I have a good FA, a bad F, or I don't know what to look for.
(Quite possible, though with some other lenses (the FA 28-70/4, the
vivitar series one 70-210 and the tamron SP90) I could see the diference
immediately).
Anyone care to comment? In what situations should the F outperform the FA?
Could their respective reputations be exaggerated?
Oh, on negative film, that is...
--
Regards, Lens-angst Lucas
