Hey Bruce, I mentioned the speed, in the form of everyone wanting a lower f number and the larger, heavier glass. Your second paragraph I'm reading two ways. The increase in speed costs, we all know that, so it drives the cost up. So it's funny that an FA* with f/2 is cheaper than mine. You would think, it being an FA* (whatever * really means) and an f-stop of 2 instead of four would make it considerably more? Or I read it as to correct for the distortion, as you talk about in the first paragraph, also costs money, which would drive mine up. I don't know the exact difference in price, but the FA* is cheap, by a bit, how small a bit or large, cannot remember.
So, where does this leave us? > Brad, > > One big factor you are forgetting is speed of lens and for the zooms, > constant aperture. Your new lens is constant aperture whereas the > 24-90 is not. Also the FA *24 is a stop and a half faster than your > new lens. Also, generally speaking, when you start going wide, zooms > have more barrel and pincushion distortion than primes. For many > applications this does not matter, but for some it might. > > The cost to gain a stop is significant and the cost to correct for > distortion is significant. It drives the price up faster on a lens > than would seem logical. > > HTH, > > > Bruce
