Well I'm comparing it to the FA* 80-200mm f2.8 & FA* 200mm f2.8. Probably not a far comparison.
Cheers, Dave On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I find the out-of-focus rendering to be just fine. In most cases, > bokeh is a function of what's back there rather than how the lens > renders it. Yet both bad and good bokeh are most often considered a > function of the lens, when in truth they're a function of the > brightness and variation of the scene itself. Some examples of > DA50-200 bokeh: > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4527667 > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4604194 > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6382714 > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6363497 > > > On Mar 6, 2008, at 11:11 PM, David Savage wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Joseph Tainter > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> "I tested the DA 50-200 tonight at 80mm, f4.5. That's one sharp > >> lens." > >> > >> I agree. I don't have it, but I had use of one for a while and > >> tested it > >> systematically against the old SMC F 70-210. The DA 50-200 held > >> its own > >> in that test, being just a little weaker at the long end. > >> > >> Funny thing is, I've seen internal Pentax documents (know ask > >> how) that > >> say the DA 50-200 is weak at the long end, and they've got to do > >> better > >> with the forthcoming 75-300. I'm puzzled by that. That little > >> telezoom > >> strikes me as a very decent performer, and excellent value. > > > > It's ok for what it is, but the OoF rendering can be odd to say the > > least. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
