Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jun 30, 2005, at 4:48 PM, David Oswald wrote:
A 50mm is significantly longer than a 35, a 35 is much closer to a
28. My dilemma is that I have a fast 50 and would like a fast 28,
but f/2.8 is only one stop faster than the already excellent
20-35/4 and 28-105/3.2-4.5 ...
An FA28/2 would be so nice. sigh.
I guess that's kind of my point. I could get the 35 f/2. But I'd
rather get a 28mm lens as my standard lens. But the 28 f/2.8 is only
one stop faster than my 16-45, and only a half stop faster than my
28-105 f/3.2-4.5. I know there are other benefits to a prime, but I
would like speed to be one of the reasons for going with a prime.
My sentiments exactly; an FA 28 f/2 would be great.
Actually, given the size and (to me) awkwardness of the DA16-45, the
FA28/2.8 would be an easy pick. I like having a small, light, fast lens
to work with. (I sold my DA16-45 for this reason.)
But between the FA28/2.8 and FA20-35/4, the size and handling
difference is much much smaller: it really becomes a distinction
between 1 stop and performance differences. I don't know how much
better the performance of the FA28/2.8 is over the FA20-35/4 at 28mm FL
setting. I'd love to hear any comments on that...
We seem to be on opposite pages on that. I owned the 20-35 and sold it
because it no longer satisfied my wide angle cravings when mounted on a
DSLR. And in its place I bought the 16-45. Yes, I wish the 16-45 were
smaller, and I think it has more barrol distortion at 16mm than my 20-35
had at 24mm on a 35mm SLR body (if that makes sense). But for me it's
working out great. My 20-35 was previously one of my favorite lenses
though, and it was with great deliberation and procrastination that I
eventually sold it. Who knows, maybe I'll buy one again in the future.
It is a great lens, and you've almost got me talked back into it.
I at one time owned a F 28 f/2.8 (not FA), and found it to not measure
up to the quality of the FA 20-35. But the FA28 f/2.8 is a newer glass
design, and I suspect that it's probably at least as good as the 20-35,
though probably not by much. It's hard to beat that 20-35.
By the way, I noticed (either here or at dpreview) your writeup on
consumer level telephoto zooms. I've got the 80-320 and have found
pretty much what you did; that it's a decent lens stopped down a couple
of stops. Mine doesn't have that rubbery feel as you zoom it though (I
can't remember exactly how you described it). Mine does, however suffer
from zoom creep if you point it straight up or down. Maybe yours has
been modified in some way to reduce that.
