Originally posted by bdery Does it *require* the hood? With my most compact lenses (such as the FA43) I did the size more than any eventual benefit of the hood, so I don't use it.
I rarely use the hood, so for me the answer is “no”. It’s just too cumbersome to carry separately and attach when you need it, and too big to keep on the lens in anything other than a large bag.
Originally posted by bdery Fair evaluation. I take it it's sharper and with better colours than the FA20?
Good question. Subjectively, I’d say the colours are better on the 24. There’s a big gap in FoV between the two FLs, so I could be deceiving myself if I declared the 24 to be sharper. Again, subjectively, if forced to, I’d say the 24 has better microcontrast, but the FA20 is no slouch, notwithstanding. It’s second-hand pricing is a reflection of its optical quality, of course, not just its comparative rarity. If the FA20 had a better build, that pricing would be even higher, I suspect.
Originally posted by bdery I do enjoy a beautiful lens. Maybe that's one of the reasons why I never warmed fully to the FA20-35, its build quality, while light, is not up there with most of my other lenses.
If they’d have kept the build of the A20-40 (I have one), then I’m sure you’d have warmed to it, aesthetically at least.