----- Original Message ----- From: "Arnold Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:38 AM Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas
> Brad Dobo schrieb: > > >>BTW: The optics of the FA*24/f2 gets verdict of 8.8 for optics and 9.0 (out of 10) for mechanics, whereas the FA20-35 gets 9.6 for optics and 9.0 for mechanics. *****I think it is ridiculous to put these two lenses in the same league meachnically. My conclusion is that Fotomagazin verdicts and "supers" (the FA20-35 got one, the FA*24/f2 did not) are very questionable.****** The curves themselves tell more.. > >> > >> > >* are mine. Mechanically? Explain this? One will break the other won't? High-tech plastics and metal components on one are worst than another? I'm lost. Perhaps I don't know what 'mechanics' means in respect to a lens. > > > "Mechanics" here means build quality, play, robustness, smoothness of > focusing etc.... While the (mostly metal, heavy) FA*24/f2 may not have > the very best build quality, I consider it to be much more solid than > the FA20-35/f4 which features no "high tech" material but just just > cheap and lightweight platic. When in the shop I had the opportunity to > buy one or the other, the better build quality of the 24 convinced me..... > > Arnold Ok, well, the FA20-35/f4 has solid mechanics then. It has 'high tech' materials. Everyone has said similar, and I've used it. Cheap and lightweight plastic? HAR. Old-fashioned view. There is nothing cheap about the plastics used nowadays. There's more R&D money in strong plastics than metal. Lightweight. I hope so, who wants a heavy lens when you can have the same thing lighter? No balance arguments, not at lenses this size. I guess carbon-tripods are cheap and lightweight too, it's only carbon, not metal, and it's light. No, that arguement doesn't work does it?
