Hi Bojidar, on 20 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list:
>Well, my opinion is that bodies matter little. I would turn the >question around and ask if any given lens requires a new body. For >example, in order to use features of the lens that an older body does >not suppert. You're absolutely right: first, the photographer makes the picture, second the lens and after that the camera itself. >The AF of the 5n has always been sufficient to me, and I� see no reason >at all to upgrade to the MZ-S. I am not much of a flash� user, >however, and the other "extra" or "better" features are more or� less >irrelevant. To me having an LX in addition to the 5n is more� >important than having an MZ-S.� I have both a MZ-5n and an LX. But I'm a little bit unhappy as I'm wearing glasses and don't like the MZ-5n's viewfinder for manual focissing. In dim light its AF is quite poor. OTOH I want to concentrate on one camera to use on vacations etc. And as my girlfriend doesn't want to use an MF LX, I need a better AF than that of the MZ-5n. Maybe you could review my posting "Some personal thoughts and speculations over my Pentax future...", where I've made an extensive explanation of my intentions...;-) I would really be interested in your opinion >I have never used the oldest 28-105, so I cannot comment on it. I read >a long commentary from Dario in a recent "Spotmatic" where he concluded >that the 24-90 is very close to or equal to the 24/2, 35/2, 50/? and the >FA85/1,4. Interesting - it seems that the 24-90 is worth its price. I'm eager to read your comment on your first 24-90 results. Regards, Heiko
