Hallo Peter,
thanks for the information about the FAJ 18-35 that is the same as in Dario
picture at http://digilander.libero.it/aohc/pshw2003/monte.htm (last picture
on the page).
It is a surprise that is has a diaphragm simular which is additional to the
FAJ 28-80
and 70-300.

Have you testet if the diaphragm simulator will move a bit if you zoom from
18 to 35.

If yes, than the 18-35 will be partial compatible to MF Kameras with K-mount
(ME, LX, ..)
The new *ist and *istD have no counterpart to the diaphragm simulator.
Therefore it is
useless with for the new *ist cameras. The others FAJ lenses do not have the
simulator.

So, the 18-35 is a FAJ+ lens, because the diaphragm change from the change
of the focal length from 4 to 5.6 is transmited to the body by this
mechanical coupling.
This is important for the old cameras. With it, you can use the lens wide
open
with the aperture correction from 4 to 5.6 on K-mount cameras and perhaps
this
is also important for the MZ-5n and MZ-S. But only wide open.
Is there something said in the FA-lens handout which comes with the lens?

So, we have now four type of FA-lenses: the FAJ  lenses, FAJ +, normal FA
lenses
and FA lenses with power zoom contacts.
It is getting confusing.

Pentax should have made a silver FAJ version without simulator and a black
FA
version which is 50 euro more expensive and had the aperature ring and not
only the diaphragm simulator.

regards
Rüdiger


>From : [EMAIL PROTECTED]

>Dario's pic is accurate. The lens appears identical.
>
>A couple of other points.
>
>When you open the box, you are confronted with a carefully placed flyer for
>the 'National Organ Donor' scheme. Whaaaat?
>
>Are they trying to tell us something?
>
>The lens is assembled in Vietnam. I knew they had moved production for a
lot
>of the bulk consumer products out of Japan but this one was news to me.
>
>The price on the site is GBP199 - I will let you guys have as many as you
>like at GBP180 apiece inc the VAT. Outside EEC divide by 1.175 to get the
ex-VAT
>price.
>
>Toodle pip!
>
>Peter
>

Reply via email to