John Whittingham wrote: >>As a DA 16-45 owner, I should jump in. Before I got the lens, I was >>using a FA * 24/2.0 lens for family portraits. I wasn't overly happy >>with it, even though I had great success with it on film. It hide >>quite a bit of CA and just didn't seem as sharp on digital. After I >>got the 16-45, I did some tests which I had another PDML member look >>at and we both concluded that the 16-45 performed as well and >>sometimes better than the FA*24 at the 24mm setting. The advantages >>of the zoom range for me were a bigger plus so I ended up selling my >>FA*24. > > > That's a shame, the FA*24 is one of my favourite lenses on film. > > >>Do I think there are better optics out there in a prime...yes. But >>at this time you would have to go to the K or M 24/2.8 to get it. > > > I have a K 24mm but it's just too long for what I need as is the FA* of > course, I'm looking for something wider than 18mm to give the equivalent of > 24mm on Digital. > > > >>I am very interested to see just how good the upcoming 16-50/2.8 lens is. >>I'm hoping it is of the image quality that the old FA* 28-70/2.8 is. > > > Out of my price range unfortunately, at least at present. > > John >
Right now the only way to get 24mm equivalent is the 16-45 or 12-24 zooms. If you don't mind a bit wider, the DA 14/2.8 gets you 21mm equivalent. -Adam Who thinks Pentax needs a 16mm f2.8 DA prime. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
