Great information! I really appreciate the time you have taken. I have owned the Tamron in the past and it is a fine lens - however, I prefer the rendering of the A 35-105 over it.
There are a few issues that may be solved by the 24-90. One is the range it covers. I have the DA 16-45 also, but find that in weddings, many times it does not have quite the reach and have to keep switching. There are more times that I would shoot longer than 45mm than shooting shorter than 24mm so the 24-90 would cause fewer lens changes. I have also done some testing of SR and find that it really does work best when set to the correct focal length. So the A 35-105 is really not a convenient candidate for using SR when I am dealing with the speed of a wedding. The 24-90 will transmit the current focal length. But as you have pointed out, being IF, the trasmitted focal length may not be that accurate. In that case, I wonder how well the SR really works? Interesting question. I still plan to heavily use the A 35-105 as it is such a great lens for people, but would be nice to have another available. I also sometimes have my daughter shoot with me and it would be useful for her too when I am using the DA 16-45 and A 35-105. Any other suggestions of lenses out there. For this, I would want it to be AF and at least 24mm wide and good optical quality. Thanks, Bruce Saturday, February 10, 2007, 2:00:34 PM, you wrote: GI> J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Are you guys talking about usage on 35mm (FF) or APS >> digital? >> jco GI> I am talking about APS digital... GI> Bruce, after checking more carefully the shots and making a few GI> more I have something more accurate to say about the sharpness GI> of the two: the 35-105 seems to be better wide open and stopped GI> down 1-1,5 stops (I made many of the first comparison shots at GI> f/4,5) especially in the corners. Stopping down the 24-90 more GI> than the 35-105 by at least 1/2 stop brings to *almost* similar GI> results. (the 24-90 is slower, so the amount of stops to have a GI> comparable sharpness is similar, but you are nevertheless using GI> a slower aperture...) GI> The 24-90 is a IF lens, so the focal lenght varies when focusing GI> (at 90mm it should be a true 90mm only at infinity, so you lose GI> a lot of reach when you focus closer - to match the fov of the GI> 24-90mm at 90 focused at 50cm I had to set the 35-105 at around GI> 75mm). Another thing, the 24-90 at 35 is truly a 35mm and GI> definitely wider than the 35-105 at 35... The 35-105 starts at GI> something like 38mm, if not more (40mm?) GI> IMO the 35-105 may behave on APS digital as a great portrait GI> zoom, when you have the time to focus and choose the appropriate GI> focal lenght. The 24-90 may be not the ultimate performer, but GI> is probably more useful (for me as a PJ, for sure) when you're GI> in a hurry. GI> Ciao, GI> Gianfranco GI> _ GI> ____________________________________________________________________________________ GI> Do you Yahoo!? GI> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. GI> http://new.mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
