> I have never had this powerzoom and know many people have prasied > this lens. > However, from what I read in an Australian magazine many years > ago, they > specifically said the sharpness was pretty low at the long end. > They wren't > impressed by this lens and didn't rate it that well. If you want > 28mm, maybe > you can consider the new Tamron SP 28-75/2.8 which is $330 only. > Not bad for > a 2.8 zoom. I have my eyes on this lens too but I havem't bought > it yet so I > do not know how it performs.
Alan, thank you for your quick reply and comment. If I go for that route, I would gladly pay extra for the FA*28-70/2.8. I used to have that lens but I sold it because it was too big (though not too heavy for such a big lens) and consume too much space in my camera bag. But as Caveman has pointed out, I might need to stop down a bit, so maybe I had to live with a big lens to start with a faster aperture. I am spoiled by such lenses as the FA*24/2.0, F*300/4.5, and the Zeiss lenses of my Contax G2, but I need to go back to Pentax because I need a digital upgrade path. I am pretty confident a Pentax 50/1.4 would be as sharp as my Zeiss lenses and therefore more than satisfy my needs. Even on 4x6 I saw a difference, although everybody says all lenses look good on 4x6. Granted, I use a loupe to inspect the prints sometimes, and I hope it is not placebo effect that I am seeing. I've read from a number of sources that even the oldest screw mount Takumar primes would be better than today's newest and best zooms, though.
