Re: :(

[Peter J. Alling]

The 28-200 wasn't constant aperture and it cost about $600.  It wasn't 
very good on film, or maybe it was just annoying on film.  I find I like 
is so much on the *ist-D I may not sell it after all.

David Zaninovic wrote:
If this one was f4 constant aperture I am sure it would also be $500.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: :(

 

The DA 16-45/4 isn't exactly fast, and it's close to $500 street price. However, I'm hoping that the 50-200 is both a terrific
   

lens, like the aforementioned, and a terrific bargain. We deserve it.
 

   

That lens is too slow to cost more than that.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jtainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:13 PM
Subject: :(

     

According to Pentax USA's web site, the DA 50-200 will cost "under $300." I
       

take that to mean a MSRP of $299.95. Street price at
B&H or Adorama would then be about $220 to $240 or so.
     

This is disappointing. It suggests that Pentax considers the DA 50-200 a
       

mediocre optic.
     

Optimistically, perhaps Pentax USA got it wrong. The same site also lists the
       

DA 16-45 as a DA J lens.
     

Joe
       


 


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke