Quoting Lasse Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Any suggestions on a 70-300 zoom AF, consumer price > level but with good resolution at the long end?
Here's a suggestion, and some reasoning to go behind it <gasp!>. Particularly since you metioned "consumer price level", I'd have to suggest the very economical Pentax 80-320mm. I own this lens, and for quite a while it was my only lens beyond the 100mm range. Overall, the 80-320mm is a good performing lens, and once stopped down to f8 or f11 the sharpness holds up to the best of them. Admittedly, the quality does drop off at the long end, but I think it still holds its own since this is very typical of most lenses in this category. In fact, after toting around an 300mm f2.8 for a while, I intend to get back to using this VERy light weight (and arguably flimsy) lens more often. I think the optics outshine the build quality, and make the price look like quite reasonable. I was also told that the lens tests done by Popular Photography gave the 80 - 320 ratings of excellent to very good, depending on the focal length. However, if you are planning to work mostly in the 300mm range, then the FA 300 f4.5 would be a better choice as others have suggested. In terms of resolution, well, I guess what you deem "visually acceptable" is quite subjective. My personal findings are that, when dealing with things that have "large scale detail" (like the close-ups of the elephants in the link below) this lens hasn't let me down one bit. Detail rendering in these situations has been satisfactory for me, even close to the longer end. However, I try to avoid 320mm... even staying around 280 to 300mm seems to be noticeably better, and usually that only means taking another step or two forward. However, things that have details on a smaller scale (e.g., bird photos where the subject takes up only a small fraction of the frame) at 250mm or higher tend to leave a lot to be desired. But again, I doubt this is atypical for such lenses. In short, overall, I think you get some pretty dorn good optics for the price. By the way, here are some photos taken with it. This is what I mean by "details on a larger scale" (sorry, didn't know how else to explain that). these two were taken at about 250mm: http://www.exposedfilm.net/g1_00212.htm http://www.exposedfilm.net/g1_powl3.htm this one (I think) in the 200mm range: http://www.exposedfilm.net/g1_00313.htm and these three all taken at the long end, (300mm or higher) wide open. Even the 320mm f5.6 photos don't look too bad here (but alas, it is the internet). http://www.exposedfilm.net/g5_pdogs.htm (click the thumbnails for larger versions) you can notice the softness (?) in these last three shots, but it's still worlds better than my old 28-200mm zoom. Hope that helps. - jerome
