I bought the FA35/2 after I already had the FA20-35/4.
I bough the prime for the two stop speed advantage, and dithered a
lot between the 35 and the 28. The prime outperforms the zoom in both
contrast wide open and rectilinear correction, but by a fairly
insignificant amount; it is also smaller but not a lot lighter than
the zoom.
Were I starting fresh, I'd do it exactly the same way again: buy the
zoom first as it is so good and is so flexible/useful through the
wide to normal range, then buy the FA35 for the improvement in speed
for low light work.
Godfrey
On May 16, 2006, at 6:41 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi Gang ...
I've decided that these two lenses are on the A-list for
consideration as
the first new lenses for the DS. I'm primarily a prime shooter,
but over
the years have come to appreciate the short, wide, M24~35 zoom, so the
FA20~35 seems like it would be just fine.
Both lenses are about the same price @ B&H, so there's no price
incentive
to get one over the other. The 35/2.0 looks to be somewhat smaller
and
lighter than the 20~35, but not so much so that it would be a major
consideration. The extra speed of the 35mm is a plus, but then so
is the
wider option on the zoom. IOW, it's a bit off a tossup which lens
to get
first.
The only thing I'm unsure of is how their optical qualities
compare. How's
the zoom wrt distortion at the wide and long end, in fact, let's just
addresss the long end, and compare their performance @ 35mm. Is
there a
noticeable difference between the two lenses, and if so, in what
areas?
Right now it's a tough decision as my budget is constrained. I
like the
idea of the smaller, faster prime, but the wider focal length range
of the
zoom is a big factor.
So, what are your thoughts?
Shel
