My point is: if you're going to spend $5000 on a lens, get a major brand name like Pentax. You're better off to save a little more to get a better lens. Plus like John said, there's always used glass for sale that's cheaper than this Sigma.
Also consider that the resale on this lens will be lousy when you want to get rid of it. Peter --- "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
