Caveman wrote: C> Any info on the 100/3.5 macro that could decide me to C> go in favor of the FA 135/2.8 ?
Yes, the 100/3.5 is the ugliest piece of crap that ever carried the Pentax name. The feeling of cheap was amazing even when I hold it side by side with the FA 28-70/4 - until then the champion of poor build quality for me... BTW, one of the things I recall from a respected former pdml member - Roberto Burgos - is that he highly valued his FA 135/2.8, both for optics and AF. Servus, Alin
