FWIW - third time on my machine. Kenneth Waller http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm > My previous reply to this message showed up as a blank, so I'll try again. > > 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. Speed is expensive. > Paul > DA 50-200: > http://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: >> > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: "Bong Manayon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> So far, not a vote for the FA J 75-300 but the FA 80-320 creeping up >> as a possible contender. I'm listening... >> >> Thanks! >> >> Bong >> >> 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?ph >> oto_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 >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Bong Manayon >> http://www.bong.uni.cc >> >> -- >> 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
