Then it boils down to: if the image quality is similar/same, then the other supported features the the FA lens provide is what you have to base it on. The FA 35 is a different optical formula, but I have heard nothing but good things about its image quality. Its certainly on my wish list. I have an M35 2.8, and a A35 2.8, the M suffers from the sticky aperture problem, and the A is just ok to me.
rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > True ... but then again, I'd be looking more for convenience and ease of > use on the DSLR rather than ultimate build quality. > > Shel > > > > >>[Original Message] >>From: Gonz > > >>Certainly the FA35/2 is a very attractive lens, on many fronts. Its not >>as well built however, but then again how many lenses today are built >>like the old K's? >> >>rg >> >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>>Yes, I understand about the GB Kludge. I have, and am happy with, the >>>K35/2.0, however, the convenience and features of the A lens has led me > > to > >>>ask the question. If the A isn't markedly superior to the K, then I'd > > not > >>>be too interested in it, and would ultimately consider an FA35/2.0. > > > > -- Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
