> I'll mention my thoughts on some of the other A lenses in another > post.
OK, here are some brief comments on a few other A lenses, as promised Or as threatened - <g>). I guess I've probably used more A lenses than all other Pentax lenses put together. Although I really do appreciate some of the ol' K lenses, and although I do really like the F* 300/4.5, I have had the opportunity of trying out most of the A lenses at one time or another during my Pentax "career" - <g>. A 15/3.5 - Quite a neat "super-duper" ultra wide angle lens. It's amazing how little distortion it has, considering its focal length. I've never owned a K 15/3.5, but I've handled one, and I'd say that the A and the K versions are mechanical and optical equals (although some claim that a few of the early K's were a little different than the rest). A 16/2.8 Fish-Eye - A really well-built "toy" lens. (I mean "toy" here in the sense that it's a lot of "fun" to use, not that it's not a good lens.) A 28/2 - The 28 that I finally settled on. It's not the absolute sharpest 28 that there is (I think the K 28/3.5 is), but it's quite good, and certainly good enough for my purposes. (See the A 35/2.) A 35/2 - The 35 that I finally settled on. It's not the absolute sharpest 35 that there is (I think the K 35/3.5 is), but it's quite good, and certainly good enough for my purposes. (See the A 28/2.) A 50/1.2 - A very nicely built fast lens. Not quite as sharp as the A 50/1.4 (except wider than f/1.4 - <g>), but a real joy to use. A 50/1.4 - I do think that the f/1.4 is the best overall A 50. A 50/2 - Significantly better than the M 50/2, and a real "best buy" in 50mm lenses. A 50/2.8 Macro - If I didn't love the A 100/2.8 Macro so much, I would probably use the A 50/2.8 Macro even more. It's a really sweet 50mm macro to use - not quite as razor sharp as is the F 50/2.8 Macro, but oh-so-much nicer to use. When I have to travel light or compact, this is the macro that gets the call. A 100/4 Macro - A good, solid, compact 100mm macro lens (my wife's macro lens) that performs very well. (Actually, I have never used a 90-ish-to-105-ish macro lens - Pentax or 3rd-party - that wasn't quite good.) A 135/2.8 - Outclassed by every other 135 I've ever used. I still have too many 135's, but I haven't felt the need to have one of these in my kit bag in quite a few years now. A* 200/2.8 - Quite a nice lens (although I don't care for the rubber baby buggy bumper on the edge of the lens hood, but I digress...). Still, I do like the K 200/2.5 better (one of my two favorite K lenses), and so I no longer have this chunk of refined Pentax glass. A* 200/4 Macro - Probably the sharpest macro I've ever used, but it's a little longer in focal length than I need for most of what I shoot, and, in fact, it can't easily be used on a copy stand except at high magnifications unless you place the subject below the copy stand on the floor. Of course, it's not really designed for mere copy stand work - this is a macro that begs to be out in the field, shooting tight shots of bugs and other critters at a distance. I no longer have this lens, and I do miss it. Well, once in a while... (The VS1 90-180/4.5 Flat Field Zoom helps me get over the pain...) A* 300/2.8 - Big, bold, and beautiful. A* 600/5.6 - Bigger, bolder, and just as beautiful. I do miss it, once in a while... AF 35-70/2.8 - Optically pretty good, but manual focusing is poor (it's the predecessor to a lot of the F lenses, right? - <g>). Of course, it's really only for the ME F aficionado, anyway, I guess... Fred
