On Jun 30, 2005, at 6:34 PM, David Oswald wrote:
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.
Remember that I have the DA14/2.8 too. I bought the 16-45 to see if
it would satisfy my desire for a wide-zoom in the wide-normal range
and whether it was wide enough that I would sell the DA14, but I
found it wasn't wide enough for when I want *wide* and it was awkward
enough in use that I didn't like it much. It's a darn nice performer
overall, but I like the 20-35 more for both ergonomics and quality.
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.
Yeah, I think it is. If I really want a prime in this range, I think
the FA35/2 is the way to go for me. Two stops faster is a compelling
rationalization, and I know the FA35/2 is both compact and a good
performer.
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.
Hmm, I think I only posted my test report to DPReview.com. I can post
it here if anyone is really interested.
On this 80-320 (which is a loaner, not mine) the zoom control has a
lot of stiction compared to the 100-300, and doesn't have the velvety
smoothness and damping of the A70-210. It's not 'bad', just not as
quick to use. There's a little zoom creep if you give it a slight
push, but I don't think I've owned too many long zooms that didn't
have *some* creep, particularly those with telescoping barrels.
It's a good lens, actually all three are good lenses, as long as you
stay within their sweet range. None of them can burn a candle against
the Canon 70-200/4L that I sold, however, when it comes to
straightforward resolution and contrast. That lens is VG to EXC at
all focal lengths and lens openings.
Godfrey
