reviews but the preponderance of these were favorable. Some of the difference could be ascribed to different expectations
and some to sample variations. Besides which Alan I already know that you're on Pentax's special list to receive product rejects ;-) .
I was fairly impressed with the M 135 though.
Alan Chan wrote:
IMHO, FA*24/2 & F/FA135/2.8 aren't that great optically. In fact, I found the M135/3.5 to be sharper than the F/FA135/2.8 near wide open.
Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
This I don't understand, the 24's are no more problematic than the 28's. The K 3.5 and 2.8 have excellent
reputations, the FA 2.0 also. The only one I've heard really bad things about is the A 2.8 which has mixed
reviews, sample variations anyone?
The 135's are also given mostly high marks. The K 3.5 2.8 and A 1.8 lenses are legendary, The FA 2.8 and F 2.8 are
at least equal in optical quality to the K's the M 3.5 is a solid performer if not quite up to the standards of the previous
lenses. Only the A 2.8 has a less than stellar reputation. Which is just what you'd expect from a class of lenses that
has had the amount of history and R&D that 135's have had lavished on them over the years.
The non SMC models of the 135's are another matter entirely, but they were budget lenses.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
