Howdy Stan, I suppose it really is 'horses for courses' isn't it Stan? I would love too try out both the A-100 and A*-200 at some stage. Rob and I will catch up in Sydney one day, and maybe I'll get to play with his A*-200. FWIW, I really like the FA 100mm. You are of course right about the 'focus feel' - which is crappy compared to even my A-50mm 1.4. However, I love AF, and do not find it a hindrance to have for close-up work, even though I often switch off the AF, or use my FA on an LX. I would love to compare some shots between all of these lenses in a more rigouress manner to see what objective difference (if any) actually exists. I understand personal preference very well, and I am no more or less objective than the next guy, but often I wonder if there really is that much in a lot of the different high-end glass comparisons.
I suppose the only answer lies in the happiness of the owner when the results are viewed. As I said before, I am a seriously happy FA 100mm owner. I haven't owned an SMC macro previously, but I have had other non-brand macros (i.e. Sigma, Tamron etc). The FA quite simply blows them away.... Guess that's why I wanted an FA* 24mm rather than another off-brand wide angle <VBG>. For the majority of the mid-range work I do, the 28-200mm range covered by my 2 Tokina ATX-Pro f2.8 zooms is perfectly adequate. However, in what I consider to be the more 'critical' areas of 1:1 macro and wide-angle, give me SMC and relatively flare free glass any day. .02! Cheers Shaun -----Original Message----- From: Stan Halpin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2002 3:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A 100/2.8 Macro on eBay Shaun - at various times, though not all at once, I've had the M-50/4, A-50/2.8, M-100/4, an F-100/2.8, the A-100/2.8 and the A*-200/4 Macros. The F is said to be virtually identical to the FA. I sold my F-100/2.8 to help finance the purchase of the A-100/2.8 based on reputation, and have not regretted it. I don't care for the manual focusing of any of the AF lenses with the exception of the *'s; I haven't any experience with the Limiteds. The A has a wonderful feel, a great touch when focusing, and of course it is amazingly sharp. Worth twice the price? Maybe not. But what seems to be an indulgence is really a necessity sometimes - can't let things get too boring. As I contemplate selling some of my cameras and lenses, the A*-200/4 and the A-100/2.8 macros are two of those I will try to hold on to. Stan ====== 11/25/02 8:15 PM, Shaun Canning at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 > >
