Doug, I'll try to be serious for a spell. Personally I resisted the 50-135 in wait for the 60-250, knowing that i would need the extra zoom on the tele end. I still think the extra mm is the most weighty argument for the 60-250. However weight itself could be an issue, as well as the physical size. Have a look at the data on Boz Dimitrov's page if you haven't tried both (which I suspect you have...) http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/zooms/long/index.html The 60-250 is 25% heavier. Also the 50-135 is IF while the 60-250 becomes quite long when zoomed to 250mm.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you don't need the extra reach of the 60-250 but have the money, it probably would be (at least) equally well spent on the 50-135 plus the other stuff you mentioned. Jostein 2009/7/9 Doug Brewer <[email protected]>: > so I'm looking at either the DA Star 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM or the DA > Star 60-250mm F4 ED (IF) SDM and the prices are way different, 500 smackers > worth at B&H. Is the 60-250 really that much better, and keep in mind that > linear thought and I rarely collide. > > For the difference, I could also get the 21Ltd and a grip for the K-7. > > What to do, what to do? > > -- > 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. > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
