Joe, Very good to know. Thanks for that tidbit! Makes me wonder if it is worth all the selling/buying hassle and losing a bunch of money. Probably better to spend it on 67 stuff for now.
Bruce Dayton Tuesday, March 19, 2002, 6:53:39 PM, you wrote: >> I would be very interested in your impressions of the lens optically. >> I have both an FA 28/2.8 and FA 35/2.0. I am not so impressed with >> the 28 and reasonably happy with the 35. If the 31 Limited was >> superb, perhaps I would consider at some point replacing both of those >> lenses with the Limited. I already have the 43 Limited and find the >> 35 and 43 fairly close in FOV. The 31 would be a better match for it. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bruce Dayton >> JT> Bruce, you might want to know that the FA 31 is actually a 32 (31.81) JT> while the FA 35 is actually a 34 (33.77) According to f-calc, the JT> difference in diagonal AOV is 3.1 degrees. JT> Joe JT> - JT> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, JT> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to JT> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
