> I have that lens, but I only shoot film, not digital. I think it is > quite useful, sharp, doesn't show too much distortion, in fact I > would say distortion is almost negligible. It focuses quite close > (40 cm at all focal lengths, if I remember well). Its only weak > point is that it is soft wide open (5.6) at 135 mm.
Sounds very good I could live with a little softness at 125mm wide open. > Its filter size > is 72 mm. and although it isn't particularly big or heavy, the > Pentax 28-105 3.2-4.5 looks really small when compared to this > Tamron. If small size and SMC are important for you, and you don't > need the extra focal length range, I would say that the Pentax is a > better choice. The filter size is the only negative side for me I'd prefer 67mm or even 77mm, size and weight probably no bigger or heavier than some of my older Pentax lenses, I used a Pentax-A 35-105 f/3.5 for years until recently when I use the Pentax-FA 28-105 Power zoom. I'd love the focal length range for a walkabout lens. John
