Re: FA*24/2.0
Cotty wrote: Did I mention that we're off to see Alison Krauss in London in a couple of weeks? g You lucky bad! Paul
Re: FA*24/2.0
Cotty wrote: Did I mention that we're off to see Alison Krauss in London in a couple of weeks? g You lucky bad! Paul She's a dish. Oh yeah, and she sings real nice :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: FA*24/2.0
Cotty wrote: Cotty wrote: Did I mention that we're off to see Alison Krauss in London in a couple of weeks? g You lucky bad! Paul She's a dish. Oh yeah, and she sings real nice :-) And somebody in her band handles a fine fiddle and I hear some outstanding banjo playing. Her web site has a few bars of MP3 music - a few songs from her latest album. It's said she left/transcended BlueGrass, but listening to these clips makes you wonder. Mighty fine stuff! keith Cheers, Cotty
Re: FA*24/2.0
Godfrey wrote: LOL ... I don't know, John. I'm just shy of 51 years old and bench press 250lbs easily. ;-) I hate carrying excessively large and heavy gear. Has nothing to do with strength or age. Godfrey WoW!!! That's really, really impressive, Godfrey!!! 250 lbs. of anything, especially a pressed bench (whatever that is), is something I'm sure I could never pull off, oops, I mean press on/off (?). Whenever I'm in San Francisco and need to go to the rougher parts of town that has benches I'll definitely remember to ask you to escort me. As for large and heavy gear and the issue of age - fortunately and unfortunately, respectively - well, that's another story - I LOVE to pack LOTS of Pentax gear (Be prepared, my scout leader said.) up steep mountains, into rugged canyons, and across desert dunes, and sometimes through urban developments; alas, as to age, Ill up you by over close to 20 years (enuff said about that). I enjoy and value your savory input to the List - thank you very much for contributing your thoughts and experiences and photographs!
Re: FA*24/2.0
LOL On 8/21/05, John Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Godfrey wrote: LOL ... I don't know, John. I'm just shy of 51 years old and bench press 250lbs easily. ;-) I hate carrying excessively large and heavy gear. Has nothing to do with strength or age. Godfrey WoW!!! That's really, really impressive, Godfrey!!! 250 lbs. of anything, especially a pressed bench (whatever that is), is something I'm sure I could never pull off, oops, I mean press on/off (?). Whenever I'm in San Francisco and need to go to the rougher parts of town that has benches I'll definitely remember to ask you to escort me. As for large and heavy gear and the issue of age - fortunately and unfortunately, respectively - well, that's another story - I LOVE to pack LOTS of Pentax gear (Be prepared, my scout leader said.) up steep mountains, into rugged canyons, and across desert dunes, and sometimes through urban developments; alas, as to age, Ill up you by over close to 20 years (enuff said about that). I enjoy and value your savory input to the List - thank you very much for contributing your thoughts and experiences and photographs!
RE: FA*24/2.0
I have tried this lens for one shooting event (indoor) on the *ist D. I found it brilliantly sharp and haven't noticed any CA-problems. Regards Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. august 2005 17:56 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: FA*24/2.0 On Aug 19, 2005, at 6:19 PM, keithw wrote: John Munro wrote: Godfrey, that's interesting what you have to say about the FA24. How did you tell it has a lot of chromatic aberration? Three different people have sent me a bunch of RAW files from the FA [The attachment star.gif has been manually removed] 24mm f/2AL [IF] that exhibited quite a lot of CA. You see it as color fringes around elements in a scene, particularly at the edges. Paul Stenquist sent me several images comparing the A24/2.8 and the FA*24/2. The A24 was much better wide open, and at most other apertures. I don't expect a zoom to perform as well as a prime. That said, in comparison with my A24/2.8, the FA20-35 produces results that are almost indistinguishable. Now, I have mentioned this before: I'm still perplexed by this FA*24 lens. Several people have told me that they just can't abide with it, and several others purport that it is a fabulous lens. I can only say that I've avoided it because of the extreme range of opinions I've discovered about it. I'm satisfied with both the A24/2.8 and the FA20-35 ... both return very good, very sharp, very low CA results. At least mine do. I shoot exclusively with the digital bodies, and the images I've seen from the FA*24 were all taken with the *ist D/DS bodies. I have no idea how this lens performs on film; it's not relevant to my uses for it. Was/is yours an FA*24, or just an FA24? Godfrey prefers an FA over an FA*, for some reason... Do you? I don't have an FA24 or an FA*24. There seems to be some discrepancy in the way this lens is listed in various place. I have the Pentax-A 24mm f/2.8. That's really all I have to say about it. Godfrey
Re: FA*24/2.0
Did I mention that we're off to see Alison Krauss in London in a couple of weeks? g Cheers, Cotty That'll be a great show. Since 'Brother, where art thou?', there certainly has been a resurgence in bluegrass. And there are some amazing virtuoso musicians amongst them, and Allison Krause and Union Station is perhaps the best of the bunch. She is an incredible musician, singer, and a multi-instrumentalist as well. I also love Ralph Stanley doing those a capella early gospel revival tunes; 'Oh, Death' and such. I hope he's there for you. Hauntingly beautiful. And it is interesting to note how close the old Southern white church music is to early black Gospel, work songs, and spiritual music, which is amazing considering the brutal racial divisions in the history of the American South. One would think they would have distanced themselves from it, rather than trying to embrace it as their own. Have a great trip and a great concert, Cotty. You almost singlehandedly keep this list collegial and friendly with your comical jibes. Some people are so freakin' serious; life's too short to be serious all the time. We lubs ya, baby. Your camera still sucks, though. Cameron
Re: FA*24/2.0
On 21/8/05, Cameron Hood, discombobulated, unleashed: Your camera still sucks, though. If you think that's bad, you should hear me playing my Weber Mando ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: FA*24/2.0
On Aug 20, 2005, at 11:17 PM, John Munro wrote: WoW!!! That's really, really impressive, Godfrey!!! 250 lbs. of anything, especially a pressed bench (whatever that is), is something I'm sure I could never pull off, oops, I mean press on/ off (?). Whenever I'm in San Francisco and need to go to the rougher parts of town that has benches I'll definitely remember to ask you to escort me. I'll be glad to provide the service. Ya never know when those benches will try to smack you in the knee. Godfrey
Re: FA*24/2.0
On Aug 19, 2005, at 6:19 PM, keithw wrote: John Munro wrote: Godfrey, that's interesting what you have to say about the FA24. How did you tell it has a lot of chromatic aberration? Three different people have sent me a bunch of RAW files from the FA [The attachment star.gif has been manually removed] 24mm f/2AL [IF] that exhibited quite a lot of CA. You see it as color fringes around elements in a scene, particularly at the edges. Paul Stenquist sent me several images comparing the A24/2.8 and the FA*24/2. The A24 was much better wide open, and at most other apertures. I don't expect a zoom to perform as well as a prime. That said, in comparison with my A24/2.8, the FA20-35 produces results that are almost indistinguishable. Now, I have mentioned this before: I'm still perplexed by this FA*24 lens. Several people have told me that they just can't abide with it, and several others purport that it is a fabulous lens. I can only say that I've avoided it because of the extreme range of opinions I've discovered about it. I'm satisfied with both the A24/2.8 and the FA20-35 ... both return very good, very sharp, very low CA results. At least mine do. I shoot exclusively with the digital bodies, and the images I've seen from the FA*24 were all taken with the *ist D/DS bodies. I have no idea how this lens performs on film; it's not relevant to my uses for it. Was/is yours an FA*24, or just an FA24? Godfrey prefers an FA over an FA*, for some reason... Do you? I don't have an FA24 or an FA*24. There seems to be some discrepancy in the way this lens is listed in various place. I have the Pentax-A 24mm f/2.8. That's really all I have to say about it. Godfrey
Re: FA*24/2.0
Was/is yours an FA*24, or just an FA24? Godfrey prefers an FA over an FA*, for some reason... Do you? keith whaley === The plate on the side of my lens states, SMC PENTAX-FA* 1:2 24mm -IFAL- I've never heard of an FA24 versus an FA*24; so, I checked Dimitrov's site and couldn't find a listing for an FA24 there, only an FA*24 is listed. To answer your question, I have only used the FA*24 f/2 and the A24 f/2.8 - I prefer the FA*24 over the A24. The only aspect of the A24 I like over the FA*24 is the color of the lens' body - black vs. silver, respectively. The size and weight issue doesn't affect me as it does Godfrey - I suspect I'm older (and maybe stronger) than Godfrey, for I come from an era when it was sacreligious to use (or mention) miniature, lightweight 35mm cameras among professional photographers. It is beneficial to me having the extra f/stop speed and autofocus abilities of the FA*24, plus I think my FA*24 has superior optical qualities than my A24 - most of what I shoot is bw film and the bw tonal print qualities of the FA lens are not as harsh and contrasty as the A24 lens - i.e., the FA lens is more Leica-like - more sharpness with a pleasing, even, transitional blending of the gray scale. I realize this is VERY subjective, but it is my honest opinion and why I prefer the FA*24. Hope you have a good day, Keith. - JM
Re: FA*24/2.0
John Munro wrote: Was/is yours an FA*24, or just an FA24? Godfrey prefers an FA over an FA*, for some reason... Do you? keith whaley === The plate on the side of my lens states, SMC PENTAX-FA* 1:2 24mm -IFAL- I've never heard of an FA24 versus an FA*24; so, I checked Dimitrov's site and couldn't find a listing for an FA24 there, only an FA*24 is listed. Without naming names, because that's not what this discussion is all about, it happens that some people are not always sufficiently precise when stating what lens did what. Either they're shortening up the name, or forgot to add the *, or something like that. No doubt unintentional, but it happens. To answer your question, I have only used the FA*24 f/2 and the A24 f/2.8 - I prefer the FA*24 over the A24. The only aspect of the A24 I like over the FA*24 is the color of the lens' body - black vs. silver, respectively. The size and weight issue doesn't affect me as it does Godfrey - I suspect I'm older (and maybe stronger) than Godfrey, for I come from an era when it was sacreligious to use (or mention) miniature, lightweight 35mm cameras among professional photographers. It is beneficial to me having the extra f/stop speed and autofocus abilities of the FA*24, plus I think my FA*24 has superior optical qualities than my A24 - most of what I shoot is bw film and the bw tonal print qualities of the FA lens are not as harsh and contrasty as the A24 lens - i.e., the FA lens is more Leica-like - more sharpness with a pleasing, even, transitional blending of the gray scale. I realize this is VERY subjective, but it is my honest opinion and why I prefer the FA*24. Hope you have a good day, Keith. - JM Thanks for your evaluation. I do appreciate it. keith
Re: FA*24/2.0
I find it hard to believe that people have such mixed feelings about this lens - either there are some batch to batch discrepancies (highly unlikely), or (more likely) some of the posters really don't know what they are talking about, and just find they aren't getting the results they are after, probably from their own deficiencies, not the lens'. Wide angle lenses are perhaps the most difficult to use; I know it took me several years of shooting before I really liked this lens. But now, you'd have to shoot me to get it off me. I have a collection of FA* lenses, as well as an FA 50mm macro and a DA 14mm, and I can tell you from vast experience that this is one of the sharpest and most detailed lenses in the entire Pentax lineup. The results from this lens are nothing short of stunning, provided you use proper techniques, good film, and you are not using a vibration prone PZ1 - PZ1P. On the *ist-D, the results are absolutely stunning. Occasionally, you will get some CA in extremely high contrast areas - in most cases, it does not print, or it is to fine to see unless you jam the print right up to your face, and if you shoot RAW, you can correct it. I have stunning, grain-free highly-detailed prints at 24x36 with this combination. I have beautiful prints hand held at iso 800 at 13x19, as well. One of the greatest lenses ever. Extremely low distortion, and even less on digital than on film because you are just using the centre of the lens elements. Shoot at F8 and it is sharp from 1.5' to infinity - you don't even have to focus. I delayed getting a DSLR for almost 2 years because people on this list said that this lens was 'terrible on digital'; really really bad CA, oh, my god. I didn't want to lose the use of my favorite lens, the 24, so I didn't buy a digital camera. I now feel stupid for having believed them so completely, and I missed out on 2 years of digital shooting because of it, not to mention the thousands of dollars I spent on film in the meantime. My advice is: don't listen to them - make up your own mind. I can only tell you my experience. When I finally did get an *ist D, and went shooting with the 24, I was stunned at the results; they approach or exceed the quality of medium format prints that I have seen. Detail and resolution that I always wanted but never got from film. Ever since then, I don't listen to posters on this list, or I at least take them with a (great big) grain of salt. Most of them were proven incredibly and completely WRONG by my experience. If you'd like some jpegs that will simply blow you away from this lens, drop me a line. Get a 24, and make up your own mind. You can always sell it if you don't like it; there are a LOT of people who would love this magnificent lens. Most decent camera stores will either lend you, or sell you on spec the lens to try out before you buy it. Personally, I WON'T be selling mine; I will be bequeathing it to some lucky bastard in my will. Thanks, Cameron
Re: FA*24/2.0
On 20/8/05, Cameron Hood, discombobulated, unleashed: I delayed getting a DSLR for almost 2 years because people on this list said that this lens was 'terrible on digital'; really really bad CA, oh, my god. I didn't want to lose the use of my favorite lens, the 24, so I didn't buy a digital camera. I now feel stupid for having believed them so completely, and I missed out on 2 years of digital shooting because of it, not to mention the thousands of dollars I spent on film in the meantime. My advice is: don't listen to them - make up your own mind. I can only tell you my experience. Yo Cam! Don't let the bastards grind you down VBG Actually you made 2 mistakes, cos as well as not getting a DSLR for 2 years while you were hiding under a barrel, you then went and got a Pentax! grinning, ruinning, diving Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: FA*24/2.0
Hello Cameron, I think you need to be cautious about putting down others for their findings. I do know how to use wide angles, as well as that lens, having owned two of them. My film experience was very good. My digital experience was not. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, August 20, 2005, 11:05:06 AM, you wrote: CH I find it hard to believe that people have such mixed feelings about CH this lens - either there are some batch to batch discrepancies (highly CH unlikely), or (more likely) some of the posters really don't know what CH they are talking about, and just find they aren't getting the results CH they are after, probably from their own deficiencies, not the lens'. CH Wide angle lenses are perhaps the most difficult to use; I know it took CH me several years of shooting before I really liked this lens. But now, CH you'd have to shoot me to get it off me. CH I have a collection of FA* lenses, as well as an FA 50mm macro and a DA CH 14mm, and I can tell you from vast experience that this is one of the CH sharpest and most detailed lenses in the entire Pentax lineup. The CH results from this lens are nothing short of stunning, provided you use CH proper techniques, good film, and you are not using a vibration prone CH PZ1 - PZ1P. On the *ist-D, the results are absolutely stunning. CH Occasionally, you will get some CA in extremely high contrast areas - CH in most cases, it does not print, or it is to fine to see unless you CH jam the print right up to your face, and if you shoot RAW, you can CH correct it. I have stunning, grain-free highly-detailed prints at CH 24x36 with this combination. I have beautiful prints hand held at iso CH 800 at 13x19, as well. CH One of the greatest lenses ever. Extremely low distortion, and even CH less on digital than on film because you are just using the centre of CH the lens elements. Shoot at F8 and it is sharp from 1.5' to infinity - CH you don't even have to focus. CH I delayed getting a DSLR for almost 2 years because people on this list CH said that this lens was 'terrible on digital'; really really bad CA, CH oh, my god. I didn't want to lose the use of my favorite lens, the 24, CH so I didn't buy a digital camera. I now feel stupid for having believed CH them so completely, and I missed out on 2 years of digital shooting CH because of it, not to mention the thousands of dollars I spent on film CH in the meantime. My advice is: don't listen to them - make up your own CH mind. I can only tell you my experience. CH When I finally did get an *ist D, and went shooting with the 24, I was CH stunned at the results; they approach or exceed the quality of medium CH format prints that I have seen. Detail and resolution that I always CH wanted but never got from film. Ever since then, I don't listen to CH posters on this list, or I at least take them with a (great big) grain CH of salt. Most of them were proven incredibly and completely WRONG by my CH experience. CH If you'd like some jpegs that will simply blow you away from this lens, CH drop me a line. CH Get a 24, and make up your own mind. You can always sell it if you CH don't like it; there are a LOT of people who would love this CH magnificent lens. Most decent camera stores will either lend you, or CH sell you on spec the lens to try out before you buy it. CH Personally, I WON'T be selling mine; I will be bequeathing it to some CH lucky bastard in my will. CH Thanks, CH Cameron
Re: FA*24/2.0
On Aug 20, 2005, at 9:28 AM, John Munro wrote: ... The size and weight issue doesn't affect me as it does Godfrey - I suspect I'm older (and maybe stronger) than Godfrey, for I come from an era when it was sacreligious to use (or mention) miniature, lightweight 35mm cameras among professional photographers. ... LOL ... I don't know, John. I'm just shy of 51 years old and bench press 250lbs easily. ;-) I hate carrying excessively large and heavy gear. Has nothing to do with strength or age. Godfrey
Re: FA*24/2.0
On Aug 20, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Cameron Hood wrote: ... Get a 24, and make up your own mind. ... That's exactly what two friends of mine in the UK did. John (DS body) bought one, used it for a month, and sold it: didn't like the CA, the weight or the bulk. Richard (D body) bought one and finds it his standard lens, the one he uses most of the time. I find I tend to like what John likes more than what Richard likes. Both take good photographs and have credible opinions about things that we have both owned or used. Godfrey
Re: FA*24/2.0
Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello Cameron, I think you need to be cautious about putting down others for their findings. I do know how to use wide angles, as well as that lens, having owned two of them. My film experience was very good. My digital experience was not. Well, I'm going to keep mine, until/unless it's proven to be a consummate dog. Aren't I, Bruce? g So far, the answer is NO! Absolutely not! I think the 24mm is a perfect f/l. All depends... It took me a long time to learn how to use my 19mm, and I expect a lot of that will rub off on using the 24. I've just started using it, altho' I bought it a full year ago... sighhh. keith
Re: FA*24/2.0
Atta boy, Cameron, give them naysayers Hell!!! Viva FA*24! ===
RE: FA*24/2.0
Yo Cam! Don't let the bastards grind you down VBG Actually you made 2 mistakes, cos as well as not getting a DSLR for 2 years while you were hiding under a barrel, you then went and got a Pentax! grinning, ruinning, diving Having played with my mother-in-law's Rebel XT, with her $85.00 battery packs (2 AA's stitched together with a piece of plastic) I'm glad I did. Even with her battery grip, she can only fit 6 AA's - the *ist D fits 8. And the distortion on her IS lenses is amazing - her Taj Mahal shots look like the building was designed by Picasso. Nice and sharp in the centre, though... If it doesn't FLARE! Oh, yeah, and did I mention that her camera crashes with the battery grip on - a lot! Even with a good card in it, and fresh batteries. Just plain locks up solid - have to reboot all the time; it'd drive me batty. My friend Gary bought a Nikon D70 and his battery packs are $100.00... no grip available... well! His new lens just died, as well... the 18-70 kit lens thing... grinding noises, won't zoom... 2 months old. Gone to Nikon for fixing. At least you've got some decent glass on your franken-thingy... too bad you're too old to hold it steady! Nyuk, nyuk. Seen this? http://www.guitarshredshow.com/ Turn up your speakers. I luv youse guyses'z's. Pentax rules! Cameron
Re: FA*24/2.0
I think you need to be cautious about putting down others for their findings. I do know how to use wide angles, as well as that lens, having owned two of them. My film experience was very good. My digital experience was not. -- Best regards, Bruce Present company excepted, Bruce. I always liked your shots, and respected your opinion, having been on (and off) this list since about 1996 or so. Thanks, Cameron
Re: FA*24/2.0
On 20/8/05, Cameron Hood, discombobulated, unleashed: her Taj Mahal shots look like the building was designed by Picasso. LOL Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: FA*24/2.0
On 20/8/05, Cameron Hood, discombobulated, unleashed: At least you've got some decent glass on your franken-thingy... too bad you're too old to hold it steady! Nyuk, nyuk. LOL You got me there pal :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: FA*24/2.0
On 20/8/05, Cameron Hood, discombobulated, unleashed: Seen this? http://www.guitarshredshow.com/ Did I mention that we're off to see Alison Krauss in London in a couple of weeks? g Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: FA*24/2.0
Cameron, I'm one of those guys who saw great results from the FA*24 on film. I was worried about the lens until I saw Stan using it on his digital body in one of the photos posted to the list. That's good enough for me. And I have yet to see bad digital results from it. Perhaps I'll run some tests against the A24/2.8. At f2, it's easier to focus. Regards, Bob S. On 8/20/05, Cameron Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find it hard to believe that people have such mixed feelings about this lens - either there are some batch to batch discrepancies (highly unlikely), or (more likely) some of the posters really don't know what they are talking about, and just find they aren't getting the results they are after, probably from their own deficiencies, not the lens'. Wide angle lenses are perhaps the most difficult to use; I know it took me several years of shooting before I really liked this lens. But now, you'd have to shoot me to get it off me. I have a collection of FA* lenses, as well as an FA 50mm macro and a DA 14mm, and I can tell you from vast experience that this is one of the sharpest and most detailed lenses in the entire Pentax lineup. The results from this lens are nothing short of stunning, provided you use proper techniques, good film, and you are not using a vibration prone PZ1 - PZ1P. On the *ist-D, the results are absolutely stunning. Occasionally, you will get some CA in extremely high contrast areas - in most cases, it does not print, or it is to fine to see unless you jam the print right up to your face, and if you shoot RAW, you can correct it. I have stunning, grain-free highly-detailed prints at 24x36 with this combination. I have beautiful prints hand held at iso 800 at 13x19, as well. One of the greatest lenses ever. Extremely low distortion, and even less on digital than on film because you are just using the centre of the lens elements. Shoot at F8 and it is sharp from 1.5' to infinity - you don't even have to focus. I delayed getting a DSLR for almost 2 years because people on this list said that this lens was 'terrible on digital'; really really bad CA, oh, my god. I didn't want to lose the use of my favorite lens, the 24, so I didn't buy a digital camera. I now feel stupid for having believed them so completely, and I missed out on 2 years of digital shooting because of it, not to mention the thousands of dollars I spent on film in the meantime. My advice is: don't listen to them - make up your own mind. I can only tell you my experience. When I finally did get an *ist D, and went shooting with the 24, I was stunned at the results; they approach or exceed the quality of medium format prints that I have seen. Detail and resolution that I always wanted but never got from film. Ever since then, I don't listen to posters on this list, or I at least take them with a (great big) grain of salt. Most of them were proven incredibly and completely WRONG by my experience. If you'd like some jpegs that will simply blow you away from this lens, drop me a line. Get a 24, and make up your own mind. You can always sell it if you don't like it; there are a LOT of people who would love this magnificent lens. Most decent camera stores will either lend you, or sell you on spec the lens to try out before you buy it. Personally, I WON'T be selling mine; I will be bequeathing it to some lucky bastard in my will. Thanks, Cameron
RE: FA*24/2.0
Would like to add, especially in comparison to the K24/2.8 Shel Any comments on this lens?
Re: FA*24/2.0
I dont have it but I have heard complaints that it has too much CA on the digital. Supposedly fabulous on film. rg Shel Belinkoff wrote: Any comments on this lens? Shel
Re: FA*24/2.0
On Aug 19, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Any comments on this lens? With regard to the D/DS bodies, there has been a lot of polarized discussion of it. Some love it, others hate it. I've seen both good and bad results from it. It is large and heavy. I saw a lot of chromatic aberration in some sample exposures I was sent by my friend in England. Paul Stenquist's comparison pictures between it and the A24/2.8 demonstrated the A24/2.8 to be a much better performer at nearly all apertures. I don't know the K24/2.8. If it is the same optically as the A24/2.8, I'd stick with that or go for the FA20-35/4 AL if you want autofocus and this focal length. I have one of the A24s as well, prefer that over the FA*24/2. Godfrey
Re: FA*24/2.0
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: With regard to the D/DS bodies, there has been a lot of polarized discussion of it. Some love it, others hate it. I've seen both good and bad results from it. It is large and heavy. I saw a lot of chromatic aberration in some sample exposures I was sent by my friend in England. Paul Stenquist's comparison pictures between it and the A24/2.8 demonstrated the A24/2.8 to be a much better performer at nearly all apertures. I don't know the K24/2.8. If it is the same optically as the A24/2.8, I'd stick with that or go for the FA20-35/4 AL if you want autofocus and this focal length. I have one of the A24s as well, prefer that over the FA*24/2. Godfrey Godfrey, that's interesting what you have to say about the FA24. How did you tell it has a lot of chromatic aberration? I'm curious, for I have both lenses you speak of, namely the FA20~35 and FA24. I'd like to know your technique for detecting the chromatic aberration, so I can see if my lens(es) is(are) as poor as the FA24 you describe. Due to an assignment I had, I had some 40x60 inch ilfochrome prints made from Kodachrome 25 I had shot using the FA24 and the FA20~35. The prints were grainy, of course, but the FA24 prints were far sharper than the prints from the FA20~35. (In fact the prints from the zoom were not acceptable to me or the customer at that degree of enlargement - they were acceptable as 20x30's.) My FA24 has made many, many 16x20 bw prints that are tonally excellent and which exhibit very good sharpness in my opinion. I assume my standards may not be as high as others, but I've never received any criticism of my final prints that dealt with sharpness. I'm not sure I'd recognize chromatic aberration, but one aspect of it I've been told is that it blurs the image at the plane of focus due to a lens with chromatic aberration characteristics changes the focal length of each color's wavelength. If a lens can produce sharp images at the amount of the aforementioned enlargement I'm inclined to say that is an acceptable amount of chromatic aberration; nevertheless, I look forward to hearing what you have to say so I can detect the chromatic aberration characteristics of my lens(es) - thanks in advance for helping me with this! - JM
Re: FA*24/2.0
John Munro wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: With regard to the D/DS bodies, there has been a lot of polarized discussion of it. Some love it, others hate it. I've seen both good and bad results from it. It is large and heavy. I saw a lot of chromatic aberration in some sample exposures I was sent by my friend in England. Paul Stenquist's comparison pictures between it and the A24/2.8 demonstrated the A24/2.8 to be a much better performer at nearly all apertures. I don't know the K24/2.8. If it is the same optically as the A24/2.8, I'd stick with that or go for the FA20-35/4 AL if you want autofocus and this focal length. I have one of the A24s as well, prefer that over the FA*24/2. Godfrey Godfrey, that's interesting what you have to say about the FA24. How did you tell it has a lot of chromatic aberration? I'm curious, for I have both lenses you speak of, namely the FA20~35 and FA24. I'd like to know your technique for detecting the chromatic aberration, so I can see if my lens(es) is(are) as poor as the FA24 you describe. Due to an assignment I had, I had some 40x60 inch ilfochrome prints made from Kodachrome 25 I had shot using the FA24 and the FA20~35. The prints were grainy, of course, but the FA24 prints were far sharper than the prints from the FA20~35. Was/is yours an FA*24, or just an FA24? Godfrey prefers an FA over an FA*, for some reason... Do you? keith whaley (In fact the prints from the zoom were not acceptable to me or the customer at that degree of enlargement - they were acceptable as 20x30's.) My FA24 has made many, many 16x20 bw prints that are tonally excellent and which exhibit very good sharpness in my opinion. I assume my standards may not be as high as others, but I've never received any criticism of my final prints that dealt with sharpness. I'm not sure I'd recognize chromatic aberration, but one aspect of it I've been told is that it blurs the image at the plane of focus due to a lens with chromatic aberration characteristics changes the focal length of each color's wavelength. If a lens can produce sharp images at the amount of the aforementioned enlargement I'm inclined to say that is an acceptable amount of chromatic aberration; nevertheless, I look forward to hearing what you have to say so I can detect the chromatic aberration characteristics of my lens(es) - thanks in advance for helping me with this! - JM
Re: FA*24/2.0
it has too much CA on film too. however, that can be corrected fairly easily when shooting RAW and using PSCS Camera RAW. it's just not wide enough on a APS sensor body for most of my needs. Herb - Original Message - From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 1:00 PM Subject: Re: FA*24/2.0 I dont have it but I have heard complaints that it has too much CA on the digital. Supposedly fabulous on film.
Re: FA*24/2.0
shoot an image with tree branches in the upper corners and clear, sunny blue sky behind them. check to see that the branches are without color fringes. in PSCS RAW, it's easy to correct, so i am going to try shooting some more with it and see. in BW mode, CA shows up as lack of sharpness more than anything else. Herb - Original Message - From: John Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 8:55 PM Subject: Re: FA*24/2.0 I'm not sure I'd recognize chromatic aberration, but one aspect of it I've been told is that it blurs the image at the plane of focus due to a lens with chromatic aberration characteristics changes the focal length of each color's wavelength. If a lens can produce sharp images at the amount of the aforementioned enlargement I'm inclined to say that is an acceptable amount of chromatic aberration; nevertheless, I look forward to hearing what you have to say so I can detect the chromatic aberration characteristics of my lens(es) - thanks in advance for helping me with this!
