I have the FA135 f/2.8(IF), and love it. It's hard to imagine getting
such a telephoto reach and f/2.8 speed (as experienced with the 135 on a
DSLR) in such a small package.
The FA version of the 135 and the F are very similar. The FA is said to
have slightly looser feel in manual focusing. The F is said to have
slightly flimsier internals (more prone to breakdown). Frankly, I think
they're pretty much equals.
Compared to the A 135, the focussing on the 'A' will feel a lot better
dampened, but that's to be expected of a MF lens. I think image quality
is fairly equal again.
There has been some discussion of purple fringing with the 135mm lenses
on DSLR's. In my experience, if you shoot enough shots in tough enough
conditions, you're going to see one or two shots with purple fringing
regardless of what lens you use. The only time I actually noticed such
an issue with my 135 was when I shot into the sky toward the top of a
telephone poll, to capture an image of a squirrel perched on the
telephone wires. The sky was very bright, the telephone wires very
dark. And some of the wires had that purple-fringe look to them. But
that was a pretty impossible set of conditions anyway.
Good luck, I think you'll enjoy the 135.
I also own the 16-45. I think you've made a good choice there. It was
the lens that got the most use on my recent trip to Hong Kong and the
Philippines. Quality is very good, both in build and in image.
Doug Franklin wrote:
Hi William and Paul,
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:30:51 -0600, William Robb wrote:
And figure out something to cover the focal distance range
I've been using the FA* 200/2.8 for.
A nice 135/2.8 should do well.
Sad we can't get a 135/2.
Geez, I should've been able to think of that! I've even got both the
K135/2.5 and the "Bow Wow" Takumar 135/2.5 in the drawer right now. So
how is the F or FA incarnation of the 135/2.8?
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
