> >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.
Sorry, but this is just a joke. I truly believe the 24-90 to be THE BEST zoom lens in that range short of the ultra expensive pro f2.8 models. However, it does not even come close to the 24/2 and not even in the same city, never mind the same ball park as the 77ltd which is supposedly neck and neck with the 85/1.4. The difference is clearly visible even under small enlargements, both in sharpness, contrast and distortion - all of which it IS truly superb at, just not even close to these lenses. Whoever said that either needs their eyes tested or they never used the lenses. > > Interesting - it seems that the 24-90 is worth its price. I'm > eager to > read your comment on your first 24-90 results. It certainly is worth the money. Not if you look at the build quality - no money has been spent here. All the money went on the optics which are stunning.
