Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer.
My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: AF> By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in AF> central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to AF> know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be AF> better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and AF> I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the AF> intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. AF> regards, AF> Anthony Farr AF> ----- Original Message ----- AF> From: "Patrick Pritchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Hello all. >> >> I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September >> 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be >> in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF >> didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into >> more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. >> >> My dilemma is this: >> >> - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a >> used F4) >> - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? >> AF> (snip)
