> I've heard this lens called the "Poor Mans 135/1.8". I'm one of those guys that calls it that frequently (and, as a very lucky - and nowadays quite poor - user of an A* 135/1.8, I can make that claim from experience - <g>).
> I've had a couple - three of those lenses, and used an A*135/1.8 a few > times. The K135/2.5 is a great lens by comparison, especially for the > money. The size is quite a bit more handy as well. IMO, especially when > shooting hand held, the K135 is comparable to the A*135/1.8 unless you must > have the wider aperture. This is my experience, as well. The K 135/2.5 goes with me frequently whenever I think I might use a 135 prime, while the A* 135/1.8 sits in "protective custody" back at home most of the time (unless I think I might really need the extra speed), and I honestly don't feel that I'm making a compromise when making the decision... And, as for its "rich man's design", the K 135/2.5 shares the same optical configuration as the K 200/2.5 and the A* 200/2.8 (the only three Pentax lenses to share their particular configuration), and I'd say that's "pretty good company" to be in - <g>. Fred
