Hi, Stan. Lotsa interspersed comments follow. (Sorry about the
rambling...)
> 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.
Yeah, same sort of thing here. I've had temporary ownership of the
M 50/4 Macro, the F 50/2.8 Macro, the A 100/4 Macro, and the A*
200/4 Macro. All have gone on to good homes, though.
The only one I sometimes have a twinge or two of regret over is the
A* 200/4 Macro. But, even with that lens, as much as I liked it, I
just never seems to use it much (unlike the A 100/2.8 Macro, which
gets used around here a lot). {Bob S. is now taking care of it, so
I know it has a good home where it is loved and cherished - <g>.)
I did sell the F 50/2.8's I tried (two of 'em), because I just
didn't like the manual focusing. The F 50/2.8 Macro is one bitingly
sharp macro lens, though. (I'm assuming that the FA 50/2.8 Macro is
the same.) Loved the optics, but hated the mechanics and the
cosmetics.
I've also played with a number of 3rd-party macro lenses, too: the
Sigma 50/2.8 Macro, the VS1 90/2.5 Macro (with 1:1 Adapter), two of
the (optically identical to the VS1) AT-X 90/2.5 Macro (with 1:1
Extender), the VS1 105/2.5 Macro, the Ricoh 105/2.8 Macro (of
course, Ricoh would not consider itself to be "3rd-party" - <g>),
and the VS1 90-180/4.5 Flat Field Zoom.
Some of the 3rd-party macros are no longer with me (the Sigma, the
two AT-X's, and the Ricoh), while others are still present and
accounted for (the 90-180/4.5 is not going anywhere soon, but I
can't seem to unload the VS1 90/2.5 Macro and its 1:1 Adapter at a
fair price, despite its reputation). By the way, the Ricoh and one
of the AT-X's went to fellow list members.
Of the jen-you-wine Pentax macros, I still have two A 50/2.8's and
the two A 100/2.8's. I will be selling one of the 50/2.8's - it's
such a nice lens to use, and so compact for easy traveling, that I
will probably keep one of 'em (despite the fact that it only goes to
1:2 and despite the fact that it is not quite as sharp as the F
50/2.8). And then there's the A 100/2.8's...
> 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.
That's interesting. The F 100/2.8 Macro is highly regarded, I
believe, so your "switch" is indeed a compliment to the A 100/2.8
Macro.
> 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.
I've had "limited" (if you pardon the expression) experience with
autofocus lenses. For manual focusing, I don't mind the FA* 85/1.4
at all, and the F* 300/4.5 is not too bad, either. However, I have
disliked the manual focus feel of the ol' AF 35-70/2.8, the F 50/2.8
Macro, the FA 43/1.9 Ltd, the FA 77/1.8 Ltd. Of course, only one of
these is a macro lens, so I guess I'm getting OT...
> 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.
Agreed on all counts (including the last one - <g>).
> 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.
Well, I will also be holding onto the A 100/2.8 Macro. And, if an
A* 200/4 Macro ever fell into my hands again, I might not let it go
a second time - <g>. But, then, maybe I could be talked into at
least trying an FA* 200/4 Macro...
Fred
