> However, the F* lens has one disadvantage, too: To switch from > auto focus to manual focus and vice versa, pulling/pushing the > ring on the lens is not sufficient, the focus switch on the > camera must be operated, too. On the FA* lens, pushing/pulling > the focusing ring is sufficient.
I also like the F* 300/4.5 a lot, and don't (yet) see any reason to "upgrade" to the FA* version. Of course, the above F* disadvantage, as described by Arnold, simply does not exist when using the F* version on an LX (or on any other manual focus body) - <g>. However, I wonder about the integrity of the paints used on the F* and the FA* lenses. Both seem to be subject to wear quite readily - but which type of paint is more resilient? Also, when the FA* lens has its mf/af clutch switched to manual focus, is the gear train still engaged? On the F* lens, there is still a slight "mechanical" (as opposed to a totally "fluid") focus feel. (I ask, since I've never focused an FA* 300/4.5 before, but I do know that the FA* 85/1.4 does not have any "mechanical" focus feel.) Fred > Today I received my newest Ebay prey: An excellent F*300/f4.5 > ED&IF to replace my FA*300/f4.5 ED&IF. > The advantages of the F* version that I can detect > - the built-in hood, which is more convenient than the huge > bayonet hood of the FA* > - the removeable tripod mount > - the focusing ring needs a slightly bigger force to turn, and it > feels a little bit more directly coupled. > However, the F* lens has one disadvantage, too: To switch from > auto focus to manual focus and vice versa, pulling/pushing the > ring on the lens is not sufficient, the focus switch on the > camera must be operated, too. On the FA* lens, pushing/pulling > the focusing ring is sufficient.
