Pentax may have thought is was fine, but many users find the lack of tripod collar a major oversight. I think structurally, the camera should be ok, but you will probably have some vibration issues to sort out.
-el gringo -----Original Message----- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 12:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Max weight of tele lens on *ist D 0.6kg is perfectly fine considered the FA*300/4.5 does not have tripod collar as well so Pentax must figure it was fine. I remember reading somewhere many years ago that lenses weighted 1kg was fine w/o tripod collar. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan >I've just picked up an old (but looks as good as new) Tamron SP 300mm f5.6 >(Adaptall 2 mount), for use on my *ist D. I'm surprised at how small and >light this lens is, and I'm thinking of adding it to my general >walking-around kit. But that would be easier without its relatively large, >removeable tripod mount. > >The lens is too heavy to weigh with our kitchen scale, but using our >digital bathroom scale (weighing myself both with and without the lens, >and subtracting one from the other to get the weight of the lens), it >seems to weigh about 21 ounces (~595g) (including the Adaptall 2 mount, >but not including the tripod mount), give or take about 2 ounces (~56g). >The length is about 169mm including the Adaptall 2 mount. > >Is that too much weight and length to put on the *ist D, with the *ist D >mounted on a tripod? > >This lens seems barely heavier than my Tamron 90/2.5 macro (also too heavy >for our kitchen scale), which doesn't have a tripod mount, but then the >300 is more than twice as long as the 90, which I realize would make a >difference in stressing the camera's lens mount. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
