Powell Hargrave wrote:
Yes, you're right :-) But they are often quite different beasts - compare
for instance 100/3.5 and 200/4 ;-)
But the 100/3.5 is not a real Pentax lens.
Even for a rebadged lens, disguised as a Pentax, it was a pretty good
lens for the money.
I owned one for about two years, and honestly I'm sorry I sold it. Yes,
it was only a 1:2 macro, and only f/3.5, but nevertheless, it was pretty
sharp, offered nice bokeh, and was a pleasure to use. When I had it, I
used it regularly, and almost always with nice results.
Then I bought an FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5, and somehow couldn't quite justify
keeping them both. But it's one of the only lenses that I've missed
after having sold it. I guess I'll have to look at getting a "real"
D-FA 100mm macro.
