Hi Greg, I have the FA 50/1.4, FA 31/1.8 limited and FA*24/2.0, and I regard the 31mm as the "normal" lens for my *istD. It's a fabulous lens, and gives about the same AOV as a 50mm on a 35mm film camera.
The FA*24 has an issue with chromatic aberration that has made some people disregard it for use with *istD. I don't have enough systematic experience to comment on that myself. So with your options, I'd go with either the 35mm or the 28mm. Personally, I would lean towards the 28, but that's really just a matter of taste. I think both the 28 and the 35 are very good optically. Best, Jostein Quoting Greg Lovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I have the DA 16-45mm and I like it, but I get sharper photos on my *ist D > when I use my F 50/1.7 and my Tamron 90/2.5 Macro (which I use more for > portrait than for macro). I use the F 50 and the Tamron 90 on the *ist D > for portraits, but I'd like a sharp prime that's wider than them while > sharper than the DA 16-45. > > The three lenses I'm thinking about are: > -- FA 35/2.0 > -- FA 28/2.8 > -- FA 24/2.0 > > The 35 sounds like a great lens, but I'd like something a little wider. > > The 28's angle of view on the *ist D is probably about what I'd like, and > I like its smaller size and weight compared to the 35 and the 24, and on > the *ist D, f2.8 is plenty fast enough for me. But it sounds like it isn't > as sharp as the 35 and the 24. Is that true? Is it very noticeably less > sharp than the 35 and the 24? Of course, on the *ist D I only really care > about the middle ~43% of the image that the lenses would create on film. > Also, I hardly ever shoot wide open, so I'm more interested in how they > compare at f8 or whatever their sharpest aperature is. > > The 24 sounds like a great lens, and its angle of view on the *ist D, > though at the wide end of the range I'd like, is okay. But it's much > bigger and heavier than the 28, and on the *ist D I don't really need the > extra f-stop. It's also the most expensive. > > I would choose the 24 if it's noticeably sharper than the 28 (middle ~43% > of the image that would appear on film; and at f8 or sharpest aperature, > not wide open); otherwise I'd prefer the smaller size and weight of the > 28. > > Any suggestions or other thoughts? > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
