> lovely, but you could present it a little bigger :-) Thanks, Markus, but sorry. I just took a look at the scan archives here, and way back then I just scanned it to fit within the PUG file size guidelines. (Nowadays, I am more likely to scan to a larger size and then resize as needed.) I must have the original print around here some place (but my filing system - or lack thereof - might make it hard to find - <g>). If I do run across it, I'll re-scan it more "properly".
> What's your general opinion on that [A 28-135/4] zoom beside the weight? I do love the lens. Despite its weight (which doesn't usually bother me all that much), it serves as a frequent "walkaround lens" for me (unless I'm walking really far - <g>). I can't really find any fault with it for such purposes. I've got two of 'em (one of which my wife uses), and am happy to have 'em. For me, the lens has a pretty useful range (the 28-135/4, plus an A 20/2.8 and either the A* 300/4 of the F* 300/4.5, make a pretty good all-around kit for many outings), it's built like the proverbial tank, is optically quite good (for a zoom, of course - it's very similar to its sibling, the often-discussed A 35-105/3.5), and it has very nice bokeh. The number one comment that one seems to hear/read about the lens (here on the PDML) is "heavy" or "weight", but that's the least important lens characteristic to me (under most circumstances) when choosing a lens. I have a few shots taken with the lens on the Pentax Lens Gallery at http://plg.komkon.org/a28-135_4/a28-135_4.html . Fred
