Hi Roland, > My FA 135 f/2.8 is built like a tank, I'm sure that it can stand > the attack of missiles. It's a full metal construction.
I hope that Arnold will tell you a story about his FA 135/2.8. > I also like the build quality of my FA 28 f/2.8 and FA 50 f/1.7. While these are not bad, ask your friend, the owner of the EOS 3 to show you some Canon lenses: the EF 28/2.8 or AF 50/1.8, if he has them. An even better example yould be the very ordinary EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM or EF 28-105/3.5-4.5. Then play with an L lens, if you can... > I like the build quality of my FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5. It's much > more solid than my FA 28-70 f/4 was. I have owned both lenses too, and for me both were equally cheaply built. Same like the FA 24-90, which mechanically is light yeras behind the EF 24-85/3.5-4.5. > So, FA lenses are *not* cheaply built - except from some consumer > zooms. I find your facts a bit weak, but "feel" is something subjective, so I am happy that you are happy. > >-- the second-hand market is VERY small: the good stuff is > > difficult to find, there are lots of people who want it, and > > it is expensive. > Obviously Pentax photographers hold onto their gear. They don't > sell it. Maybe they just don't like Pentax's AF offerings, or there are NO auto-focus offerings to replace the K, M or A lenses? > > - top-of-the-line Pentax = serious amateur from the other > > manufacturers (for example MZ-S = Canon 30/Elan 7e) > > That's your personal rating. > MZ-S = EOS 3. Either I do not fully understand the MZ-S or you do not fully understand the EOS 3... > No, 4 bodies supports it. MZ-S, MZ-6, *ist and *ist D. With more > to follow. The *ist and *ist D are not available for sale, so at this time (and at time when I was making my decision) there are only two. > > ++ top lenses in every focal length > > Not the entry level consumer zooms (like the 28-85 USM and DC). > They have not got favourable reviews, at least not in Sweden. Neither do any of Pentax's 28-80 or 28-90 zooms (expluding the f/2.8 version). > But the entry level lenses are very plastic with no distance > information scale. So are Pentax's. > The MZ-5n is far more intuitive to use. When the aperture rings disappear, there will be no MZ-5n any more. > The more I use my MZ-5n, the more I like it. It's a beautiful camera. I like the 5n too. In fact, I might even sell the LX and superProgram but keep the 5n as the only Pentax body to serve my Pentax glass. Cheers, Boz
