Hi Heiko, > Actually I'm owning the Tamron-built 28-105 in silver which fits > nicely to my MZ-5n. I was just wondering, if it makes sense to > buy a MZ-S with a 24-90 or to use a cheaper 28-105 with the MZ-S.
Well, my opinion is that bodies matter little. I would turn the question around and ask if any given lens requires a new body. For example, in order to use features of the lens that an older body does not suppert. The AF of the 5n has always been sufficient to me, and I see no reason at all to upgrade to the MZ-S. I am not much of a flash user, however, and the other "extra" or "better" features are more or less irrelevant. To me having an LX in addition to the 5n is more important than having an MZ-S. > Please let me know, how you judge the lenses in comparison. BTW - the > old 28-105 Powerzoom is told to be very good. Did you use one and can > you compare it to the other 28-105? I have never used the oldest 28-105, so I cannot comment on it. I read a long commentary from Dario in a recent "Spotmatic" where he concluded that the 24-90 is very close to or equal to the 24/2, 35/2, 50/? and the FA85/1,4. The older 28-105 was also tested, and it was "respectable" but the other lenses were noticeably better, especially at wider apertures. Cheers, Boz
