I can't give you a definitive reason to buy Pentax but I can point out
that Pop Photography had changed it's testing methods and standards in the
last few years. You may not be able to do a direct comparison between
reviews across a ten year time span. Another thing to keep in mind is
that differences between lenses could also be sample variation, individual
samples of the two lenses could give exactly opposite relative results.
At 10:48 AM 1/7/2003 -0700, you wrote:
I've noted the posts in praise of the FA* 24mm. f2.0. I could use such a
lens for indoor architecture.
According to Popular Photography's review (3/93) it is very sharp, but a
bit weaker at f2 and 2.8. Moderate barrel distortion. Across most
apertures, it consistently overexposes by about 1/3 EV. That is a
nuisance for shooting slide film.
The new Sigma 24 mm. f1.8 was reviewed in the 11/02 Pop Photo. It has
less barrel distortion and less light fall-0ff. It tends slightly to
underexpose, which is better for slide film. It is sharpest at f2.0, and
second sharpest wide open. This is important for indoor use hand-held.
They are close enough in price that cost is not a factor. I'm sure the
Pentax will resist flare better, but as I said, this is mainly for
indoor use.
On the basis of these reviews, it sounds like the Sigma is a better lens
for me. Please, someone give me a reason to buy the Pentax.
Thanks,
Joe
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
