Scott. I have the K400/5.6 that i bought from a lister last year. Its been used and abused, but it takes good pictures.I tested it out on a small dock on a pond edge, north of home, with the dock about 100m or so away, and it pretty much fills the finder, with a bit of overlap.
I have tried it on the istD and PZ-1 with decently sharp images, again on the dock. It seems to give a better shot with Tmax(more contrast) over FP5+(greyish image), One thing i find is that even though its lighter than my Nikon 70-22 VR, its harder to hand hold than the 70-200, so its mostly on the monopod or tripod. Now the Sigma 170-55 i have is a LOT harder.LOL Dave Quoting Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Scott Loveless wrote: > >> I'm thinking about buying either a K400/5.6 or a K500/4.5. Primary >> use would be 35mm film, but it will certainly be mounted on the K100D >> from time to time. Anyone have any input on image quality? Is either >> significantly better than the other? And for my wife's peace of mind, >> would someone mind talking me out of buying one? <g> > > I've never used the K500/4.5, but I have a K400/5.6 in the other room. > Actually, it's for sale. I like the lens and get good quality photos > out of it. But I have to say, honestly, that the photos from the Sigma > APO 400/5.6 Macro are better. It's like 20 years newer, though, with > all the advances in materials and lens design that go with those 20 > years. But the K400/5.6 produces better photos for me than the Tokina > SD 400/5.6 that I had. > > -- > Thanks, > DougF (KG4LMZ) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Equine Photography in York Region -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
