On Jun 28, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
The comparison they're making is to the inexpensive, consumer
mount 35mm f/2, which is far from Canon's top notch glass. Note
that Canon has a 35mm f/1.4L which should easily best the Sigma
offering, and there's Pentax' own 31/1.8 which will kill it on
performance too.
What is the price comparison between the 4 lenses?
Thought I'd add a couple more ...
Canon 35/2 - $230
AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D - $305
Canon 28/1.8 USM - $390
Sigma 30/1.4 - est $450 (can't seem to find a price yet)
Pentax 31/1.8 - $865
Canon 35/1.4L - $1,120
AF Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D - $1,694
Leica Summilux-M 35/1.4 - $2,795
The Canon 28/1.8 USM is probably better than the Sigma in all
respects and will be significantly more consistent in quality
control. It's a very fine lens. I have one for the 10D ... it makes
fantastic photos.
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW4/18.htm
(The Canon 35/1.4L was a bit of hyperbole ... it is one of Canon's
known *exceptional* lenses, and fairly large/heavy/expensive.)
I do wish that Pentax would re-release the A28/2 in D-FA mount...
What is wrong with the FA28/2.8? OK, it's not hugely available, but
if you look around... Except if a stop makes a difference to you.
Nothing wrong with it. I'd just like a reasonably priced, good
quality f/1.8-2 prime lens in this focal length range. The FA*24/2 AL
is too big and heavy, and I haven't got a good feeling as to its
quality. The FA31/1.8 Limited is excellent quality, but also big and
heavy as well as fairly expensive.
The A28/2 optics are small and it's occasionally available for a
reasonable $350 price on the used market ... I'd like to see it in a
compact D-FA mount, just like the A50mm f/1.4 optics moved to an FA
mount with little increase in price, size or weight.
Godfrey
