Hello
whereever possible, I replaced my FA lenses with F lenses because of the better build quality, the better materials, the better feel, and also the better mechanics. It is true that the focusing ring of F lenses is narrow. However, once you get used to the narrowness, the actual focussing feel is at least as good as with the FA lenses. For me, the F series is the K series of the Pentax auto focus lenses. Yes, there are holes in the F series primes line-up. However, that does not reduce the value of the F primes that exist. I own the F28/f2.8, F50/f1.4, F50/f1.7, F50/f2.8, F100/f2.8, F135/f2.8, F*300/f4.5, and I am happy with all of them. The only one that was updatet optically by an FA lens was the 28.
Also, I do not agree with the statement "Personally, my gripe with F lenses is that they are for the most part cheesy zooms--a lot of the good stuff either died off in the K or A era or was only updated as FA rather than F."
Which "cheesy" zooms do you mean?
The F24-50 is optically identical to the A24-50
The F28-80 is optically identical to the A28-80 and way better than the FA28-80s.
OK, the A28-135/f4 was not replaced by an F lens, however, the FA28-200 was not a replacemet, either.
The F35-70 is optically identical to the A35-70/f3.5-4.5
The F35-105/f4-5.6 was slower than the great A35-105/f3.5, however, it is not a bad zoom at all
The F35-135 is optically identical to the A35-135
The F70-210/f4-5.6 was slower than the great A70-210/f4, however, it is of the same quality.
The F*250-600/f5.6 was an improvement over the K135-600/f6.7.
Speeking of "cheesy zooms", the ones that come to my mind are the FA28-80/f3.5-4.5, FA70-200/F4-5.6, and the FA28-200.
Arnold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
I haven't run anything like a proper test, but so far I'd agree with you on the F* 300/4.5. I suspect it will test better than the other slow 300s I have to put against it. IMHO no 300/4.5 is going to work well on a 2x converter (too dark), and from what I've heard most 2x converters cause a loss of quality that most professionals find intolerable.
F lenses are hard to find used, and presumably impossible to find new. They aren't exactly attractive, and they don't have the build quality of even the A lenses. Manual focus with them is not great (in common with early AF lenses from other manufacturers). Most of the good ones appear to be optically identical to the A versions. All of these seem to be valid reasons why the F lenses are unpopular.
Personally, my gripe with F lenses is that they are for the most part cheesy zooms--a lot of the good stuff either died off in the K or A era or was only updated as FA rather than F. Given the lens focal lengths and apertures that I would like to carry, there are almost no F versions (no wides wider than 28, no 28/2.0, no 35, only a soft-focus 85, no 200, only the 600/4 for big glass). There are A versions, and often FA versions.
Really the only NEW F primes I can think of are the 300/4.5 and the 135/2.8, both of which are well regarded, and the 600/4 which we understandably don't hear much about.
DJE
