From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 02:44:11 -0800
Aside from some Tamron rebadged zooms, the choice of true Pentax FA zooms are quite limited when compared to C, N & M. They have many good quality consumer zooms (I don't mean those truely low quality lenses), but Pentax was stuck with FA28-105/4.5-5.6, and now the FA20-35/4 & FA24-90/3.5-4.5. Still, the choice is rather limited.
The FA 28-105 f/4-4.5 (power zoom) was rated as the best 28-105 in it's class when Practical Photography tested it, I believe this test was in -98. Better than Nikon 35-105, Canon, Minolta and Sigma. It took time for Pentax to replace the 28-105 f/4-5.6, but since it was better than the competition it didn't really needed to be updated for some time. the competition had to update their lenses so they could be in the same class.
I can assure you the FA135/2.8 was not built like a tank.
Then tell this to my FA 135 f/2.8, since my 135 obviously are just pretending to be built like a tank then.
The focus ring feels truely bad, so to the FA100/2.8.
I say that the focus ring feels truely good, I prefer the rubber grip to the unpleasant feel of my M lenses. One thing that many has been upset about, is that autofocus lenses doesn't have the same feel when turning the focus ring as manual focus lenses has. I have no problems with focusing my FA lenses manually. They feels well put together. Nothing is loose, nothing rattles, nothing wobbles. Turning the focusing ring is smooth and pleasant. The FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL (IF) is better here than the FA 28-70 f/4 AL, and perfectly comparable to FA 135 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.7. I like the feel when focusing manually.
These lenses have metal shells and quite ok, but it's no Nikkor AF lenses (similar lenses).
Then please switch to Nikon since you obviously prefer them.
If I remember correctly, most FA* lenses were more expensive than Nikkor AF and similar to EOS equivalent.
So we are speaking about the past now?
The FA*80-200 and FA*28-70 were selling like US$16xx & US$12xx respectively. The FA*200/2.8 costed US$12xx too. The only truely affordable * lens was FA*24/2, and the FA*85 & FA*300/4.5 were selling at US$8xx.
Some prices...
* Macro Canon EF 50 f/2.5 Macro : 5 576 SEK Nikon AF 60 f/2.8 Micro : 4 120 SEK Pentax FA 50 f/2.8 Macro : 4 084 SEK
Nikon AF 85 f/2.8 PC Micro : 16 958 SEK
Canon EF 100 f/2.8 Macro : 6 970 SEK Nikon AF 105 f/2.8 Micro : 8 978 SEK Pentax FA 100 f/2.8 Macro : 6 036 SEK Pentax A 100 f/2.8 Dental : 5 184 SEK Pentax 100 f/4 bellows : 2 269 SEK Pentax FA 100 f/3.5 Macro : 2 262 SEK
Canon EF 180 f/3.5L Macro : 13 995 SEK Nikon AF 200 f/4D Micro : 20 625 SEK Pentax FA* 200 f/4 Macro : 13 035 SEK Pentax A* 200 f/2.8 Macro : 16 444 SEK
Comments: Pentax has the least expensive optics, the Nikon 200 f/4 Macro cost nearly twice as much as Pentax 200 f/4 Macro. Is it really better? Canon does not have a 200 Macro.
* Telephotos Canon EF 85 f/1.2L : 23 100 SEK (pro quality) Canon EF 85 f/1.8 : 5 540 SEK (consumer grade) Nikon AF 85 f/1.4D : 13 468 SEK (pro quality) Nikon AF 85 f/1.8 : 5 736 SEK (consumer grade) Nikon AF 105 f/2.0 : 14 964 SEK (pro quality) Pentax FA 85 f/2.8 Soft : 5 076 SEK (pro/consumer?) Pentax FA 77 f/1.8 Limited : 7 682 SEK (pro quality) Pentax FA* 85 f/1.4 : 9 815 SEK (pro quality)
Comment: Pentax pro-quality lenses are less expensive than the pro quality lenses from the competition. The FA 77 Limited is very inexpensive for it's superior performance. Pentax gives best performance for the money. Pentax lacks a pro-quality non-Macro 100/105 lens, and a consumer 85 f/2.8 - but how important is this?
Canon EF 135 f/2L : 11 600 SEK (pro-quality) Canon EF 135 f/2.8 Soft : 4 200 SEK (consumer) Nkon AF 135 f/2.0 : 14 963 SEK (pro-quality) Pentax FA 135 f/2.8 : 4 010 SEK (consumer)
Comment: Pentax is the least expensive here. Pentax lacks a pro-quality 135, but Nikon lacks a consumer 135. Canon lacks a consumer 135 which isn't soft focus.
Canon EF 200 f/2.8L : 9 660 SEK Nikon AF 180 f/2.8D : 10 973 SEK Pentax FA* 200 f/2.8 : 13 545 SEK Pentax A* 200 f/2.8 : 13 568 SEK
Comment: All those are pro-quality. Canon is the least expensive, Pentax the most expensive. Nikon really doesn't fit in here since it has 180 and not 200.
Canon EF 300 f/2.8L IS : 58 624 SEK Canon EF 300 f/4 IS : 17 175 SEK Nikon AF 300 f/4D : 13 850 SEK Pentax FA* 300 f/2.8 : 45 644 SEK Pentax FA* 300 f/4.5 : 9 126 SEK
Comment: Pentax has the least expensive options here.
Canon EF 400 f/2.8L IS : 95 725 SEK Canon EF 400 f/5.6L : 20 160 SEK Nikon AF 400 f/2.8D :107 730 SEK Pentax FA* 400 f/5.6 ED : 15 316 SEK
Comment: Pentax has the least expensive options here, Nikon is the most expensive. (Nikon's lens cost as a Citroën C3 1.4 with SX and comfort pack. I definately takes the Citroën over the Nikon! :-) ). Pentax lacks a 400 f/2.8, but I guess that the market isn't there...
Canon EF 500 f/4 L IS : 84 000 SEK Nikon AF 500 f/4D : 94 763 SEK Canon EF 600L IS :103 770 SEK Nikon AF 600 f/4 :119 700 SEK Pentax FA* 600 f/5.6 : 58 874 SEK
Comment: Pentax does not have a 500 lens, but since the 600 cost less than the 500's from the competition - it's not needed at all. Buy a Pentax 600 instead of a 500 from the competition, and for the difference in price - you can buy a *ist D!
Now, I stop here. I can list all lenses, but it takes time to write this down and my fingers hurts already. My point is this: Pentax has in general the least expensive pro-quality optics around when we compare with Nikon and Canon. All prices comes from the swedish online store Cyberphoto (http//www.cyberphoto.se). Pentax optics are very, very good. They might have existed for some time now, but the optics are still very, very good. When the competition updates their lenses, they usually updates the zooms - covering new focal ranges. Prime lenses seldom gets updated.
If you take into the account that EOS lenses had much better AF ability, the FA* lenses were overpriced indeed.
I don't agree with this, since AF ability is body dependant. The low-end Canon's has among the slowest AF in it's class (Pentax has faster AF, according to tests in the swedish magazine FOTO). The pro-Canon's has good AF, but not the low-end ones. Even if the AF motor is in the lens, the body has the AF control software. So your statement is not correct, the ability of Canon AF depends on the body. Just as Pentax.
Some of these lenses are cheaper these days, but at the same time, every manufacturers have moved forward and produced updated versions while Pentax is still selling the new old stocks at the lower but still not quite competitive price tags.
That's a false statement. If you want, I can give you the whole price list from Cyberphoto so you can check it for yourself. Pentax lenses are in general less expensive than Canon and Nikon, if this isn't "competetive price tags" then what is?
And you forget that the FA* lenses are still among the best lenses in the world. Why update class leaders?
Because the whole thing is plastic, except the mount.
That's not true. The MZ-5n has many metal reinforcements underneath the plastics, so "the whole thing" isn't plastic at all.
Best wishes, Roland
_________________________________________________________________ Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Sök http://search.msn.se/
