Alan, thank you for your quick reply and comment. If I go for that route, I would gladly pay extra for the FA*28-70/2.8. I used to have that lens but I sold it because it was too big (though not too heavy for such a big lens) and consume too much space in my camera bag. But as Caveman has pointed out, I might need to stop down a bit, so maybe I had to live with a big lens to start with a faster aperture.
Price issue aside, the Tamron is claimed to be the most compact 2.8 zoom on the market, if it mean anything to you. A few owners of this lens also said the same thing. You can check it out here http://www.tamron.com/di.htm.
I am spoiled by such lenses as the FA*24/2.0, F*300/4.5, and the Zeiss lenses of my Contax G2, but I need to go back to Pentax because I need a digital upgrade path. I am pretty confident a Pentax 50/1.4 would be as sharp as my Zeiss lenses and therefore more than satisfy my needs. Even on 4x6 I saw a difference, although everybody says all lenses look good on 4x6. Granted, I use a loupe to inspect the prints sometimes, and I hope it is not placebo effect that I am seeing. I've read from a number of sources that even the oldest screw mount Takumar primes would be better than today's newest and best zooms, though.
I have never used any SM equipment so I really don't know. But I am with you when you said you can see the difference on 4x6 prints. However, beware that the Pentax 50/1.4 isn't that sharp wide open. In fact, the A50/1.4 that I had was so soft I used it f4 up. I had similar problem with FA*85/1.4 too.
regards, Alan Chan
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
