On 14/02/2013 11:51 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013, Bill wrote:
On 14/02/2013 10:05 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013, Stan Halpin wrote:
Ones that I wouldn't let go? The 77 Limited. The FA*200/4 Macro. The
holy trinity of DA* zoom lenses: 16-50, 50-135, and 60-250.
What do you see as the advantage of having both 50-135 and 60-250?
(Other people have said not to bother.)
The 50-135 is a stop faster and a lot smaller.
When would those advantages be enough to not bother using the 60-250?
Putting it another way, when is it worth using a zoom with less than 3x
range? (I'm particularly curious because some people have been pushing
prime lenses instead of zooms, and it seems to me that a zoom with less
than 3x range makes it worth looking at primes. So why not just use the
100mm macro?)
I guess I don't see the 50-135 as a "lot" smaller.
The 50-135 is about 2/3 the weight, and IIRC, somewhat smaller when
retracted. The 60-250 extends a lot when zoomed. I've only used the
50-135 once (I had one on trial from Pentax just before they were
released), I don't recall for sure if it extended, but I don't think it did.
The biggie for a lot of people would be the extra stop of speed, though
at this point with the high ISO capabilities of cameras like the K5,
this may be moot, for me, carrying a 765 gram lens as opposed to an 1120
gram lens would be an advantage, providing the 135mm focal length is
long enough.
I am mostly a prime lens user, so my own choice would be the 55/1.4, one
of either the 70/2.4, 77/1.8 or 85/1.4, either the A100/2.8 or the DA100
macro, and A135/2.8, but this is a lot of lenses to carry.
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
