I am using extensively an A 70-210/4 right now. It is a great lens, but I have found now with Shake Reduction, that it is clumsier to use. In my tests, having the correct focal length dialed into the body makes a difference in how well the SR functions. The only quick way to make that change is to shut the camera off and then back on. So it would be nice to have an FA or DA 70-210/4 lens to replace it with. I am still heavily using the lens I have and have not purchased the smaller variable aperture DA 50-200.
-- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 2:01:59 PM, you wrote: JCOC> there have been many many FF 70/80-200/210 mm F4.0 JCOC> constant aperture PK lenses over the years, Pentax and 3rd party. JCOC> Won't one of these work for you or do you need JCOC> the "A" mode or AF specifically? Even so, there JCOC> have been a many of those too I would think. JCOC> jco JCOC> -----Original Message----- JCOC> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] JCOC> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JCOC> Bruce Dayton JCOC> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 4:21 PM JCOC> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List JCOC> Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 JCOC> Unfortunately, I see nothing on the roadmap that quite fills what I am JCOC> looking for. JCOC> The 50-135/2.8 is faster and constant, but doesn't have JCOC> the reach. It is a lens that I will probably get and be quite useful JCOC> for wedding stuff, however. JCOC> The 60-250/4 is a possible one - I really need to see the size/weight to JCOC> decide on that one. Again, just a little more reach perhaps - I JCOC> currently have the Sigma 100-300/4 EX and use it quite a bit for sports JCOC> stuff, but it is larger than I would want to carry around. It sits on a JCOC> monopod. I suspect the Pentax could be similar size. JCOC> So I am looking for something between these two. More like a 70-200 ish JCOC> constant F4 - that would have a little more reach than the 50-135 and JCOC> not be as bulky and heavy as the 60-250. JCOC> I think for people who are not going to use the lens too much, the DA JCOC> 50-200 that is available now is probably just fine. Then you can live JCOC> with the speed/build compromise. JCOC> -- JCOC> Best regards, JCOC> Bruce JCOC> Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 1:05:37 PM, you wrote: SB>> Hi Bruce, SB>> Is there something on the "roadmap" that you think may be a better SB>> alternative - constant aperture, better quality, perhaps smaller, SB>> lighter? What about the 60-250? SB>> Shel >>> [Original Message] >>> From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >>> Date: 3/14/2007 11:41:21 AM >>> Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 >>> >>> I have resisted buying it so far. I would prefer a better build >>> quality and a faster (constant) lens. It appears to be very good for >>> the price. My take is optical quality is better than expected for >>> the price point, but build quality is consumer level. >>> >>> -- >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 9:09:54 AM, you wrote: >>> >>> SB> Is the 50-200 supposed to be a "consumer" zoom - i.e., designed >>> SB> more SB>> to a >>> SB> price point than the highest quality image? For those who use >>> SB> the SB>> lens, >>> SB> are you pleased with it. Paul, and a few others, seem to be >>> SB> quite SB>> happy >>> SB> with theirs, but what about those of you who don't often comment >>> SB> on SB>> such >>> SB> things? >>> >>> >>> SB> Shel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net JCOC> -- JCOC> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List JCOC> [email protected] JCOC> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
