"Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark (or Jim) wrote: >>From memory, I think the F24-50 was every bit as good as the FA24-90 >>throughout its (admittedly smaller) zoom range. > >That's not bad at all. I have nmever tried the FA24-90mm, but I own a >F24-50mm. >I have not used it to much, but everything I got (*istD) was quite useable, >even for professional (sell-able) work. >It may be a bit soft (perhaps not stunning sharpness), but still quite >constrasty and overall very pleasant photographs. >I'll definitely keep on using it - especially as a walk arround lens >(equivalent to 36-75mm on a digital body).
It's one of the lenses in my recent comparison test: http://www.robertstech.com/temp/24mm.htm http://www.robertstech.com/temp/28mm.htm http://www.robertstech.com/temp/50mm.htm http://www.robertstech.com/temp/70mm.htm Lenses are: FA*24/2.0 FA28/2.8AL FA50/1.4 F24-50/4.0 FA24-90/3.5-4.5 Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
