Peter Jansen said: > I'd spend the extra $2000 and get a decent lens.
What's wrong with the Sigma? I have to believe that at $5000 the Sigma has decent optics, and "decent" includes capability in addition to fussier details of optical quality like how good the bokeh is. But it's all academic for me. I can spend $200 on a lens if I really think I could make good use of it. $5000 or $7000 is just unconditionally out of the question. So no worries, I won't be getting the Sigma. > --- "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've found what seems like the ideal lens for me, > > the Sigma 300-800mm > > f/5.6. Now it costs $5000, so I'm not likely to buy > > it this decade. But > > it looks like it only comes with Sigma, Canon, and > > Nikon mounts. No > > Pentax. Well, if I buy it, I suppose it would be no > > big deal to add > > another 5-10% to get a camera to dangle from the > > back. > > > > Pentax has a 250-600mm for around $7000, and > > although I'm not going to be > > getting that one this decade, either, it's still a > > little short for my > > tastes when it comes to birdies. > > > > Photography can be expensive.
