The FA*24/2.0 is an extraordinary lens. It *is* big; I sometimes wish I'd lept a slower, smaller 24mm as well. But if image quality is the goal you'll never regret getting the 24/2.0
"Brent Hutto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have a "Bargain" quality SMC 24mm f/2.8 lens on order from KEH. >It will be my first wide angle lens and I'm a bit surprised at how >expensive Pentax wide-angle prime lenses seem to be. For nearly >$200 I'll expect my "Bargain" to be optically perfect. If not, I'm >prepared to swap it for an "Excellent" condition example of the same >model. But therein lies my question. > >KEH sells an "Excellent" SMC 24/2.8 for $265 but an "Excellent" >SMC-FA* 24/2 can be had for $286 (when they have the it in stock, >which isn't every day). For $31 more it sure would seem that the >newer, faster, fancier lens is a better deal even if I don't have an >auto-focus camera body. Other than a slight issue of bulk and >weight is there any way in which a circa 1978 f/2.8 wide-angle >prime would be superior to a circa 1998 f/2 prime? It just seems like >in addition to the extra stop of speed (not a huge deal) the SMC-FA* >would have more modern coatings and an aspherical element and >should have the optical edge over anything being built for the same >purpose in the 1970's. >- >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
