> > The FA* 24 is indeed weak at f2.0. It is still weak at f2.8. From f4.0 > > on it is quite good. This is what Popular Photography reported in > > testing it, and also what I have found in testing it. I am rather > > disappointed in its performance, although I love its build. > >Also the CA it exhibits is the worst of nearly any 24mm K mount lens >I've tested on the *ist D and it's not the retrofocus ratio as the >A15/3.5 is much better than it. > > > I use my primes in low light, and need them to be useable wide open. I > > typically make prints on 8-1/2 x 11 inch (A4) paper of images that I > > like. This is where the FA* 24 disappoints in its wide apertures. > >Same here, I've had to buy another lens and forsake a stop because just >doesn't perform to my expectations wide open. > >---------------- > >Pop Photo's old review in 1993 mentioned the lateral CA. > >Rob, what are you using it its place? I have currently borrowed the >Sigma 20 f1.8. It is bad at f1.8, useable at f2.0 and 2.4, and quite >good from f2.8 on. It is, though, big and heavy (82 mm. filters), being >made for 35 mm. I keep hoping for a DA 18-20 f1.8-2.0. > >Joe
Maybe the old 24/2.8 could be an alternative, if one can do without autofocus, and A setting? Peter
