Hallo, I have both the MZ-S and the MZ-5n. The MZ-S is the far better camera, the viewfinder is a bit better. (I were glasses) Í like the data-inprinting very much. I have also both lenses. The new 3.2-4.5 28-105 is smaller and it cost only about 300 Euro. The 24-90 is overpriced for it's build quality. I think it specialy expensive in Germany, in Japan it cost the same as the 28-200 or the old powerzoom 28-105 which mean 400 Euro. That would be a fair price. I got a used one for 350 Euro, so a bought it. Up to now I could see any differences in the pictures between this two lenses. at http://www.popphoto.com/Camera/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=190#Pentax is a test of both.
Regards Rüdiger -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Heiko Hamann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Datum: Mittwoch, 20. November 2002 20:31 Betreff: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 >Hi Bojidar, > >on 20 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list: > >>Well, my opinion is that bodies matter little. I would turn the >>question around and ask if any given lens requires a new body. For >>example, in order to use features of the lens that an older body does >>not suppert. > >You're absolutely right: first, the photographer makes the picture, >second the lens and after that the camera itself. > >>The AF of the 5n has always been sufficient to me, and I· see no reason >>at all to upgrade to the MZ-S. I am not much of a flash· user, >>however, and the other "extra" or "better" features are more or· less >>irrelevant. To me having an LX in addition to the 5n is more· >>important than having an MZ-S.· > >I have both a MZ-5n and an LX. But I'm a little bit unhappy as I'm >wearing glasses and don't like the MZ-5n's viewfinder for manual >focissing. In dim light its AF is quite poor. OTOH I want to concentrate >on one camera to use on vacations etc. And as my girlfriend doesn't want >to use an MF LX, I need a better AF than that of the MZ-5n. Maybe you >could review my posting "Some personal thoughts and speculations over my >Pentax future...", where I've made an extensive explanation of my >intentions...;-) I would really be interested in your opinion > >>I have never used the oldest 28-105, so I cannot comment on it. I read >>a long commentary from Dario in a recent "Spotmatic" where he concluded >>that the 24-90 is very close to or equal to the 24/2, 35/2, 50/? and the >>FA85/1,4. > >Interesting - it seems that the 24-90 is worth its price. I'm eager to >read your comment on your first 24-90 results. > >Regards, Heiko >
