>> But the A and FA versions do appear to be identical optically, though, >> right, Bruce?
> I have both as well. While the focus ring is thinner on the FA, I > don't find it to be any difficulty. Since I obtained the FA, I find > myself using it a lot for both AF and MF. They are supposed to be > optically identical, and the performance I see with them bears that out. I've considered getting an F or an FA 50/1.4, just for the DS that I now have. I do own mostly mf lenses, but I do have a small number of F and FA lenses, and I've been having some fun with this "new-fangled" autofocus concept - <g>. (Although I do have an SF1 and an SF1n - the SF1 is one of those clear plastic "see-through" demo models - <g> - and my wife and daughter-in-law both use ZX-5n's, I've actually done very little with af up to now. However, having my new DS is causing me to investigate ~two~ "brand new" technologies - both didjuhtel and ottofocus - <g>. However, I see that the supply of F and FA 50/1.4's has kind of "dried up", and that the price (due to demand) has also been creeping up, so I might not ever end up with an af 50/1.4 after all... My inventory of F and FA lenses here consists of an F 70-210/4-5.6, a couple of F* 300/4.5's, an FA* 85/1.4 (it's actually my wife's, and I actually have the A* version for my 85), an FA* 80-200/2.8, and an FA 28-210/3.8-5.6. All of these (except for the last one) have been picked up for their optical qualities (af notwithstanding), and have mostly been used for manual focus. However, I've started playing with them on the DS, and - <gasp!> - I've even been trying them out as jen-you-wine ~autofocus~ lenses - <g>. Fred
