David, I have the 55/4, 90/2.8 and 165/2.8. I do portraits and wedding stuff along with landscape and scenics. Your planned kit sounds similar to mine. Fisheye, 45, 55, 90, 165, 300.
I do like the 165. Focuses smoothly and produces sharp images. I would say it is certainly worth getting. Are there any specifics that you would like to know? Bruce Dayton Saturday, March 16, 2002, 2:17:29 PM, you wrote: DAM> Hi all, DAM> Anyone out there have experience with this lens? I may have the DAM> opportunity to purchase one (there goes the 90mm f/2.8 fund...). DAM> Its one of the lenses I have in my mind as part of my future 67 kit: DAM> 45/4, 55/4, 75/2.8, 90/2.8, 165/2.8, 300/4. I already have the 45 DAM> and 300 and I could probably do without the 55 (just crop from 45). DAM> I do mainly landscape & scenic work; portraits are rare for me so DAM> there's no need to complain about its minimum focus distance (I may DAM> also be getting an extension tube set soon anyway). DAM> Cheers, DAM> - Dave - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
