However, my impression from the list over a similar period of time as you relate is that some people really _hated_ their 28-70 f4's. I honestly can't name names or quote who said what when, but I do recall more than a few people who were just plain being unhappy with this lens. That was countered by people like me (and apparently you) who found this lens to be quite fine. So I reach the conclusion that there is a lot of sample variation.
I might buy a DA general purpose zoom in the future, or maybe a 35mm prime to use as a normal lens on the *ist-D. But for just plain walking around photography, I'm happy with an ME-Super, M 50 f1.7, and some Tri-X.
- MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Oswald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: *ist & portrait zooms
Mark Cassino wrote:I shot an ad-hoc wedding with the *ist-D and 28-70 f4/AL in December, and the results looked fine. I guess that is portraiture of a sort.
Based on the widely mixed reviews of this lens, there seems to be a lot of sample variation.
From what I've been reading since, oh, about 1998, that lens has gotten a lot of well-earned praise. And most of its dissenters seem to be the ones that turn their noses up at anything that's not built like a tank. I have seen very few complaints over image quality; it's usually remarks like "Well, its not quite as sharp as the 28-70 f/2.8, and flimsy by comparison, but better than anything else in its class." That's a guarded complement, isn't it? ;)
As general consumer zooms go, it's a great lens. In fact, I would take it over any other 28-80 or 28-90 'F' or 'FA' lens Pentax has ever made.
That said, I sold mine in favor of longer reach on my ZX-5n, buying a 28-105 in its place. On the *ist-DS, IMO, neither is wide enough to be terribly practical as a 'go light' alternative, and I find myself seeking out something of comparable image quality that offers a focal length range more suited to a DSLR.
I suppose at some point, after I'm done accumulating fast primes, I'll gather a few of my redundant zooms together, sell them, and buy one 16-45, or 24-90, or both (I admit to being a little caught up in the lens buying addiction).
:)
Dave
