--- Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, as the 24/2 has a bad reputation on the D, would
> Kiron/Vivitar fast 24mm lenses be better?
There's been a lot of debate about the FA24/2 AL on the D/DS on
the DPReview forum. I'm not sure what to make of all the debate,
but the word of one poster there whom I know from the PAW list
and other venues I feel is credible.
He found the lens to be quite sharp all through the aperture
range, found that there was a bit more CA at wide apertures than
he was expecting. But also found that storing exposures in RAW
format and then using Photoshop's Camera Raw plug-in, which has
CA correction utilities, ameliorated this issue to a non-issue.
His biggest beef about the lens was more its size and weight,
which is considerable, and found that he preferred a manual
focus lens anyway.
He's moved on to a K24/2.8, which I don't know whether he's
received yet. I recently acquired an A24/2.8 and like it a lot:
it demonstrates a bit more flare than the A28/2.8 but is
otherwise an excellent performer on the DS, with sharpness and
rendering quite similar to the A28/2.8.
Regards the FA35/2.0: I've only heard one person say they didn't
like it on the *ist D, and I don't know if they ever used it on
a film camera. That's the lens I had ordered but changed to an
FA31/1.8, due to its excellent reputation and my desire for an
f/2 lens in this focal length range.
Godfrey
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
