There was an FA* 200mm f4.0 macro on e-bay recently that 830.00 would have just about bought, and an A* not long ago for the same money. I know that everyone has there favourite lenses, but surely the 200's represent better value in that sort of price range than a really expensive (albeit high quality) 100mm. And just how much better are the A-series 100mm than an FA 100mm for example. I paid about $300.00 for my FA 100mm f2.8 and couldn't be happier. Apart from being non-AF, what is the attraction of an A above an FA at over double the price?
Cheers Shaun -----Original Message----- From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2002 12:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A 100/2.8 Macro on eBay >> $830.00...that is shear madness.. > Nope, thats what happens when scarcity combines with quality. I sold my "user" specimen of this lens about two weeks ago for $350. It had perfect glass and mechanics, but it was the least pretty one that I had. (It was my first A 100/2.8 Macro, and it was my most used one over time, but sentimentality fell by the wayside here in a weak period of "underemployment" - <g>.) I am now down to two of these special critters, but I still have had an easy time (so far, anyway) resisting the temptation to "cash in" on my backup sample. Blatant conspicuous consumption: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/a100f28m6.jpg Fred
