There is this new website <grin> called the Pentax Photog Gallery - you have images posted there - it allows you to look at photos shot with specific lenses. You might want to go there and have a look. I remember quite a few good images coming from the FAJ 75-300 - much better than I thought it would be.
-- Bruce Monday, September 10, 2007, 10:34:55 AM, you wrote: BM> So far, not a vote for the FA J 75-300 but the FA 80-320 creeping up BM> as a possible contender. I'm listening... BM> Thanks! BM> Bong BM> On 9/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> And I've gotten very good performance from both the FA 80-320 >> and the DA 50-200. With the possible exception of some "kit" lenses >> and FAJ and K-series Takumar budget lenses, Pentax lenses will >> deliver quality images when used correctly. Of course, there may be >> sample variation, particularly with less-expensive lenses, but I >> have yet to encounter it. If you need 300 mm reach and speed isn't >> critical, the FA 80-320 is a good inexpensive choice. The DA 50-200 >> will vignette at wider focal lengths on your film cameras. But, >> dollar for dollar, it's a very good lens. >> Paul >> DA 50-200: >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6119287http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6119287 >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5458304&size=lg >> FA 80-320: >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3113513&size=lg >> -------------- Original message ---------------------- >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > David Savage wrote: >> > > On 9/10/07, Bong Manayon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > >> Hi everyone! >> > >> >> > >> My professional work does not really require anything longer than my >> > >> 28-105 or 135mm lenses but ever so often I wished I had something >> > >> longer. I had a Sigma 55-200 for a while but I sold that one. I was >> > >> thinking of getting the DA 50-200 but I would like to use it on my >> > >> film bodies as well so why not something like the FA J 75-300? My >> > >> problem is I could never really get my hands on one (there's none in >> > >> the Philippines; have to get it online) to test it and it does suffer >> > >> bad rep for being 'cheap' so I wonder how bad it really is. >> > >> >> > >> Your thoughts? Is that a waste of time and should I get something >> > >> like the FA 80-320 (there's a couple of old stocks floating around >> > >> locally)? Or, maybe even Sigma's or Tamron's 70-300? Their prices >> > >> float around $150... >> > >> >> > > >> > > I can't recommend the DA 50-200. I bought one while on my recent trip >> > > because I needed something longer than what I had taken with me. And I >> > > was underwhelmed with it's performance. >> > > >> > > The 80-320 isn't too bad for the price. All but the last 2 of these >> > > were taken with it: >> > > >> > > <http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/index.html> >> > > >> > > I'm pretty harsh on these consumer zooms, since having got the FA* >> > > 80-200mm. >> > > >> > > Cheers, >> > > >> > > Dave >> > > >> > > >> > These are really quite impressive for an old, slow, "consumer" zoom. >> > >> > -- >> > Remember, it's pillage then burn. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> >> BM> -- BM> Bong Manayon BM> http://www.bong.uni.cc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
