> Been looking into the A 200/4 lens (not the Macro) as a > lightweight alternative to the FA* 200/4 ED Macro (when I don't > want to shoot macro). This lens seem to be quite rare. Any > experience with this lens?
I used to have one of these, P�l. My first 200mm prime was an M 200/4, but I replaced it at one time with an A 200/4. I didn't see any significant difference between them (which was OK, since the M lens wasn't too bad to start with - <g>). I sold the A 200/4 when I picked up a K 200/4, which is not nearly as compact or as light as the M and A 200/4's. I honestly can't remember a lot of details of the A 200/4 (sorry), but it certainly was a decent lens, as I recall. I think it might have had slightly lower contrast than does the K 200/4 (but still decent enough). It does make a nice travel lens. However, there certainly seems to be fewer A 200/4's around than M 200/4's (which are common enough to be usually fairly cheap). Fred - 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 .
