Wayne, My collected comments follow. My personal thoughts: It's so much more expensive than slower zooms, I don't think it's worth the premium. The Pentax SMC 35-105/3.5 PKA is said to be so outstanding, you'd have to be brain-dead to spend much more for the Tamron.
Collected comments: AF version not available in Pentax mount; weighs 2 oz. more. Detachable lens hood included. Terry, Nikon posting: "I own the Tamron 90/2.5 Macro MF and the Tamron 35-105/2.8. IMO, they are both great lenses. The 35-105 basically stays on my F90X as its standard lens." Christian (Contax mount): At f/2.8 brilliance is low, esp. compared to Zeiss lenses, but at f/4 or f/5.6 the brilliance improves to prime standard and at f/4 the resolution is also in the same region. At 105mm you can see a 2% line curving which is not up to Zeiss standard, but good for a zoom. Sharpness, 8; Color, 9; Optics, 8; Convenience, 7; Mechanics, 8." Composite results from four reviewers on www.cmpsolv.com: "Performance wide open, OK short, good long; Performance stopped down, good short, very good long; Vignetting, little short, none long; Distortion, critical short, signif. long; Color, slightly warm; Flare, heavy; AF speed, slow; build quality, good." Wai Chan: "I had the SP 35-105mm f2.8 ASL which was expensive but poor both optically and mechanically (my biggest mistake on lens purchase, not even my previous Sigma lenses gave me so much trouble)." Paul Franklin Stregevsky - 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 .
