On 3/29/05 11:20 AM, "Quasi Modo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "if everything else is at least equal to the FA version" - ceteris > paribus is a dangerous thing Ken! I've only seen one comparison page > between the FA 100 and the DFA 100 but the FA 100 used in the > comparison looked severely compromised. The dpreview Pentax SLR > forums usually has plenty of comparison threads posted every week so > it'd be worth searching and trawling through. I also know a couple > of fellow Australians who will be getting the DFA version soon and > I'll be sure to get them to subscribe to the list and post something > resembling an opinion on it! Well, I simplified my statements but the size/weight reduction is significant. FA100mmm macro was indeed a tank. BTW, I read an interesting statement by a Pentax lens designer on new DA macros. I list only on DA 100mm macro. 1. It is a brand new design (as opposed to 50mm version which basically purged flare spots (kind of ghost) caused by CCD. Otherwise no changes for 50mm), taking into consideration the future reduction of the barrel size. FREE design contributed to the significant reduction of the size. 2. FA100/50 macros have been one of the most well selling lines of Pentax lens lineup, but they were also money losers (cost was higher than the price). The more they sold, the more did they suffer from red :-). 3. Therefore, they now use many common parts and injection molded parts, whereby they should make money while maintaining the price points. 4. They swear that the performance was not compromised. Re above item 1 (future reduction of barrel size), I noted that the filter size of this lens is 49mm vs. current 58mm. Return to more like M series lenses? Re above 4, this was uttered in rather an informal occasion and I have every reason to believe that this was true (not a propaganda). But to me, the size of the new DA macros is as important as their optical performance. Cheers, Ken
