brendan, one thing for sure: it's a hell of a lot more (1) heavier (2) expensive (i'd gess ~$700) (3) difficult to find i don't own it, but i used to have m100/2.8 and i'd guess any decent macro lens would be sharper.
there are tons of very good used 3rd party macro lenses (i personally have a pka vivitar ser. 1 100/2.5 -- terrific glass, terrific build, does 1:1, and $135 is hard to beat; my only complain is that it focuses "the wrong way"). unless you are a collector, or have tons of spare cash and time, i see no reason whatsoever to lust for macro a*100/2.8 mishka > From: Bmacrae > Subject: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8 > Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:25:49 -0700 > > -------- > > Hey gang... > > I currently have the M version of the 100mm f2.8. I really enjoy the > results this lens produces. However, I'm in the market for a macro > lens and I want to know how the f2.8 100mm Macro does for non- > macro/portrait work. Is it as sharp or sharper that the m and a > series lenses? > > Thanks. > > Brendan MacRae Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com - 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 .
