On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:41:08AM -0500, John Francis wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:08:46AM +0000, Steve Cottrell wrote: > > On 17/12/16, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed: > > > > >Going to full frame, I no longer have a lens for the k1 to fill the > > >niche of my 18-250, being reasonably long, if not particularly fast, but > > >will still fit in my camera bag and not weigh a ton. > > >The da 55-300, despite nominally being an aps lens seems to do ok on ff. > > >Is there anything even better, preferably not too expensive? > > > > Just being a fly in your ointment for a minute - why would you consider > > a lens of such sweeping focal length? Surely with the K1 having such a > > good sensor, using what can only ever be an inferior lens (with such a > > large zoom range) is counter-productive? > > That's not always the case - back when I was regularly shooting motorsports > (on film ...) I was used to seeing a lot of the full-time photographers > using the Canon L 35-350, which was an amazingly good lens. But that was > the exception (and by now I suspect modern digital sensors would point out > flaws in that lens that we didn't see when limited by film resolution).
FWIW - back in those film days I picked up an FA 80-320 as my long-reach lightweight carry-around (replacing a 100-300 which I never really liked). It still seems to be fairly well thought of. Furthermore, it would be available on the same terms as my heavyweight alternative (the 80-200/2.8); I just came across the 80-320, which I hadn't seen for several years, when we were going through a pile of boxes to find out just what was in them :-) -- 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.
