hmmm those look pretty good to me... now i'm gong to start coveting again. ann
Paul Stenquist wrote: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4527737&size=lg > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4527667 > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4505311 > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3582841&size=lg > On Jun 24, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Amita Guha wrote: > > > I picked up this lens last week as a travel lens. It looked like the > > lens was focusing poorly or something, so I returned it for a new one, > > and I'm getting the same results - the images from it are very soft. > > > > Does anyone else have experience with this lens, and is this typical > > performance for it? At this point I'm thinking of picking up the Sigma > > 55-200 to see if it's any better. I realize the DA 50-200 is a cheap > > lens, but I can't tolerate that level of softness. > > > > Thanks, > > Amita > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
