Dave, A small reservation on my part. The FA 100/2.8 is definitely a solid, heavy, high quality lens. The Tamron SP 90/2.8, from what I hear, isn't quite as solid (though not terrible).
But ... I find myself mooning a little more frequently when I run across shots taken with the Tamron (curses on the man who focussed my attention on "bokeh" <g>). I think the 90/2.5 went 1:2 and its successor, the 90/2.8, goes 1:1 (may be wrong, of course). Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Dan; > >Why the negative comment at the end? Is the FA a bit cheap feeling or is it >the optical quality that is bothering you? > >Might you know any difference between the various tamron offerings? Does >anyone know what the diffence between the FA 90f2.8 and f2.5 are? It looks >like the newer version is a bit lighter? I am getting conflicting >information. > >dave > >Dan said: > > >I've got the FA 100/2.8 (EX from KEH) and it is my most freq. used lens. The >other serious contender was the Tamron SP 90/2.8. From the samples photos >I've seen (and my own with the FA 100/2.8) the two are very close in >quality. The Tamron may have slight edge as far as bokeh is concerned. >Cheaper price and Pentax logo ended up being the deciding factor for me >(still not sure I made the right choice). > >Dan Scott >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >______________________________________________________________________________ >Send a friend your Buddy Card and stay in contact always with Excite Messenger >http://messenger.excite.com >- >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 .
