I think what he meant is that the FA100 f/3.5 is not
even close to be well built as the FA 100 f/2.8. The
plasticky outer barrel feels cheap. The FA100/2.8 have
a metallic barrel and is built like a tank, quite
heavy and expensive when new though. I got mine used
at www.keh.com as a Bargain item for $199 and THAT is
a great lens. The Tamron Macro 90/2.8 is another
alternative, it gets to 1:1, has been very well quoted
an it's quite affordable, but I have never handled
one.
Herbet.
--- Anupam Routh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Many thanks for your reply. Can you elaborate about
> "the low weight could be a
> curse in disguise"? I live in a small place. There
> is no opportunity to
> handle the lens. No store in our area carry this
> lens. What about its optical
> quality in taking pictures during family vacation?
> with thanks.
>
>
>
> "SETH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Before spending the money, make sure you at least
> handle the lens.
> That low weight could be a curse in discuise.
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account
> today at http://home.netscape.com/webmail
> -
> 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.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.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.
