On Aug 19, 2005, at 6:19 PM, keithw wrote:
John Munro wrote:
Godfrey, that's interesting what you have to say about the FA24.
How did you tell it has "a lot of chromatic aberration"?
Three different people have sent me a bunch of RAW files from the FA
[The attachment star.gif has been manually removed]
24mm f/2AL [IF] that exhibited quite a lot of CA. You see it as color
fringes around elements in a scene, particularly at the edges.
Paul Stenquist sent me several images comparing the A24/2.8 and the
FA*24/2. The A24 was much better wide open, and at most other apertures.
I don't expect a zoom to perform as well as a prime. That said, in
comparison with my A24/2.8, the FA20-35 produces results that are
almost indistinguishable.
Now, I have mentioned this before: I'm still perplexed by this FA*24
lens. Several people have told me that they just can't abide with it,
and several others purport that it is a fabulous lens. I can only say
that I've avoided it because of the extreme range of opinions I've
discovered about it. I'm satisfied with both the A24/2.8 and the
FA20-35 ... both return very good, very sharp, very low CA results.
At least mine do.
I shoot exclusively with the digital bodies, and the images I've seen
from the FA*24 were all taken with the *ist D/DS bodies. I have no
idea how this lens performs on film; it's not relevant to my uses for
it.
Was/is yours an FA*24, or just an FA24?
Godfrey prefers an FA over an FA*, for some reason...
Do you?
I don't have an FA24 or an FA*24. There seems to be some discrepancy
in the way this lens is listed in various place. I have the Pentax-A
24mm f/2.8.
That's really all I have to say about it.
Godfrey
