I just picked up a Tokina AF 100/3.5 macro from KEH. I'm assuming this is the same lens as the FA 100/3.5 minus the SMC coating. It goes only to 1:2 as KEH, naturally, did not have the life size adapter. Based upon the look and feel, I'm pretty sure this is the same Cosina made lens that the same as the Vivitar/Phoenix/Pentax 100/3.5. I was just never knew they made it for Tokina. A test roll shows it to be surprisingly sharp and with good contrast. However, I'm wondering if it too sharp to be a portrait lens. I do very little portraiture, mainly pictures of my son, but I'd assume most macro lens may be too sharp to portrait work, as they'd accentuate any blemishes to be a bit too noticeable. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 10:49 PM Subject: Re: A 100/2.8 vs. FA 100/3.5 vs. Tamron SP 90/2.5 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > A 100/2.8 > > FA 100/3.5 > > Tamron SP 90/2.5 (manual) > > > > Which one is optically the best for portrait photography? > > Don't know about the A 100/2.8, but the FA 100/3.5 is definitely better > than the tamron. The tamron is sharp, but a bit flarey. It's built > better though... > > tv > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
