First of all greetings to the list and am I happy you survived to
Pentax kick!
Hi Artur, yours is among the oldest dilemmas on the list. I myself got
tired of waiting for FA 70-210/4 and sprung for FA 80-320/4.5-5.6.
It's better build than anything in its class, has very good optics up
to 200, tolerable above 200 especially due to the good contrast and,
if you care, has the better AF implementation. According to my test,
is perfectly capable of 20x30 cm blow-ups. I wait for it to arrive
from B&H where btw, it's only $200.
As for F 80-200/4.7-5,6 ... I swore not to buy a lens as poorly
build as my FA 28-70/4, despite its excellent optics.
Never saw the newer Tamron, but the previous version was pretty much
in the same league as Pentax and Sigma macro. Sigma has the edge in
central resolution at 300, Pentax has better contrast overall due to
SMC, while Tamron delivers more uniform resolution across the frame.
Optical differences are minimal, beyond that it's very much a
question of taste.
Servus, Alin
Artur wrote:
AL> Hi all,
AL> I'm still looking for a tele zoom for my MZ-7. I've narrowed my options to three
lenses:
AL> - Tamron 70-300 mm f/4-5,6 LD MACRO (a 472D model)
AL> - Pentax SMC F 80-200 mm f/4,7-5,6
AL> - Pentax SMC F 80-320 mm f/4,5-5,6
AL> And now this is a really tough choice. All three have both advantages and
AL> disadvantages. Currently I opt for the Tamron - it's the fastest of them. It is
also a
AL> new model and I heard that LD in new Tamron lenses does its job pretty well -
better,
AL> than in the earlier ones. Besides, this lens is being promoted in Poland and so it
AL> costs about $190 (there's a very similar lens of Sigma, that costs about $300 - a
big
AL> difference, and I heard that the normal price of this Tamron is quite the same).
AL> On the other hand there are two Pentax lenses, that have the advantage of ...just
being
AL> Pentax lenses:)). I possess the infamous SMC F 35-80 mm f/4-5,6, of which everyone
AL> complains about loss of sharpness, vignetting and so on. For me it's excellent in
its
AL> price range and when compared to some of the Tamron lenses it shows its
superiority in
AL> sharpness, in particular.
AL> So here we have two Pentax lenses. But they are quite slow. I use a tripod almost
every
AL> time, as well as ISO 200 films, so I don't have problems with long exposure, but
who
AL> knows? Maybe someday I'll need that additional 0,5 EV in my lens...
AL> That 80-200 has pretty good opinions on the Net (a note of 3 on Photodo, good
comments
AL> on PhotographyReview and CameraReview) and it's surprisingly cheap - costs less
than
AL> that promoted Tamron. It is said to be very sharp within the almost whole zoom
range.
AL> It also have the best minimal focusing in this class of lenses - 1,1 m, comparing
to
AL> 1,5 m of the other two. But it's the slowest of the three and lacks a hood. And of
AL> course it lacks that 100 mm of zoom and I tend to shoot a lot on a long focus.
AL> The 3rd one is the most expensive - it costs twice the previous Pentax does (about
AL> $330). There are various opinions about this lens and I'm not sure it's worth the
AL> money. But the high end of the zoom ist the longest of the three.
AL> So, what do you all guys think of it? What should I do? Please help me before I
get a
AL> constant headache or something worse...:))
AL> Thx in advance and greetz to all:))
AL> Artur
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
