The A is a different optical formula than the M. http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/tele/A200f4.html
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/tele/M200f4.html The M has a slightly better reputation over all for image quality, but that may just be due to a more "elements = better design/performance" bias I've sometimes noticed. Christian wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I'd like to buy these lenses. Dose anybody have these lenses? How are >> they on digital? As for the first one I saw some photos and they are >> just ok, as for the second one I don't hear too much. These lenses are >> rather cheep today. >> >> May be somebody can share the links to the photos by these lenses? >> >> Thank You in advance. >> >> > > The 200/4 is a fine lens. I had both the M and A versions (they were so > similar I believe the glass and build were the same, only the addition > of the A setting set them apart). I used the 200 with a reversed 50mm > in front as a 2x macro rig. I also used the 200 as a long, candid > portrait lens. I could grab snaps of the kids when they least expected > it. I only used the A version on the *ist D and found it to perform > very well. > > -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
