Hey Rob, Can I get into this without any trouble? <non cut and paste area> Not to step on yours or anyones' toes, but look at it from such a less extreme critical viewpoint. People have a hard time accepting that a zoom, will beat some fixed-focal length or the 'pride' term is prime lens. Have I used all of these, no. I'd make a small wager that if I looked at comparison photographs, I couldn't tell which from which. My eyes have been checked recently. I'm just not that critical. Know what I mean? So there is that point and then the Limiteds are another. This group (which is not wholly representative of any Pentax customers or close) is in love with the Ltds. Why? You and others could name a dozen or two quite fast. To me, they are ugly little silver metal lenses of fixed (limited) local lengths of 'odd' numbers. Right, I have never owned one or tried one. If I get a chance to try a Ltd. I will do so, then maybe take back my words, but don't count on that too much. I'm not so critical of lens performance as a good group of you are. To myself, they are silly looking, something like the fixed lenses on an old 35mm Germany camera I have (fungus problem, was given to me, found in the bottom of a box). I can see there are times where you want to go 'back-to-basics' and pull out the old mechanical camera and it's old lenses or your Ltds. I can't do that myself, but I like the appeal as a time to time thing. But anyone stupid enough to break a cheap build lens is wealthy enough to buy another one no problems. It's the optics that count anyhow right? (talking 24-90 You wouldn't get those without a case of some sort around it, and I don't think it's duct tape, so it must be good enough.)
I think a fair email. If you look where I'm coming from. I don't tow the party line here, I know. Some of you would give your life for your Ltds., so consider me a check and balance, you US folks will like that! :) I don't consider myself expert or have used all the lens, but I believe if you placed them all in my hands, I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which. Just a speculation! Some are not so critical, some don't need to be. Some don't care. Well, I hope I'm not opening up for an attack against me personally. Just my view, my take. Perhaps looking that others that aren't so demanding but dare not speak out like I do. Maybe they don't want to blow up the shots? Brad. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 4:41 PM Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 > > >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. > > Sorry, but this is just a joke. I truly believe the 24-90 to be THE > BEST zoom lens in that range short of the ultra expensive pro f2.8 > models. However, it does not even come close to the 24/2 and not even > in the same city, never mind the same ball park as the 77ltd which is > supposedly neck and neck with the 85/1.4. The difference is clearly > visible even under small enlargements, both in sharpness, contrast and > distortion - all of which it IS truly superb at, just not even close to > these lenses. Whoever said that either needs their eyes tested or they > never used the lenses. > > > > > Interesting - it seems that the 24-90 is worth its price. I'm > > eager to > > read your comment on your first 24-90 results. > > It certainly is worth the money. Not if you look at the build quality - > no money has been spent here. All the money went on the optics which > are stunning. > >
