Wait till the DA* 60-250 comes out and the market will be flooded with DA 50-200 lenses at bargain prices. Paul On Mar 14, 2007, at 7:44 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Not really, because the current secondary market > has at least some 70-210/A lenses available (nearly 100% USED) > but there are hardly ANY 50-200/DA > available except for NEW at a price higher than the > 70-210/As are selling for. Your argument might make sense in the future > but for right now the 50-200DA lenses are certainly not "far > less expensive" to actually aquire than the 70-210A lenses are. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 7:35 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 > > > Since the 70-210 sells USED for nearly the NEW cost of a DA 50-200, the > DA's used cost is likewise much lower than the 70-210 A. > > -Adam > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> if the 70-210/4.0 A lens, which is no longer avail new, >> sells for "nearly" the price, (LESS) than the new 50-200, >> the 50-200 is NOT a "far less expensive lens" than the 70-210/A lens, >> it not even less expensive at all than the 70-210/A, it's MORE >> expensive. >> >> jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of Adam Maas >> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 7:13 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 >> >> >> The SMC-A 70-210 f4 typically sells used for nearly the price of a new >> 50-200 DA, the latter is a far less expensive lens, and pretty much a >> match in performance (apart from the variable aperture). >> >> -Adam >> >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: >>> why not? those lenses were never expensive >>> and a APS version would be less costly to >>> make than a FF version of same quality or >>> better quality for same cost of the FF version. >>> jco >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>> Of Thibouille >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:09 PM >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 >>> >>> >>> yeah and sell it for the price they sell this 50-200 ? LOL >>> >>> 2007/3/14, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> Jeez, you would think they could at least do >>>> F4 constant in the reduced APS format like they have >>>> done in the past on FF 35mm format many times. >>>> jco >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > >>>> Of Bruce Dayton >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:33 PM >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> 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 price point than the highest quality image? For those who >>>> SB> use the lens, are you pleased with it. Paul, and a few others, >>>> SB> seem to be quite happy with theirs, but what about those of you >>>> SB> who don't often comment on such things? >>>> >>>> >>>> SB> Shel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 > > > -- > 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
