Yes, your new response is very much so. (---Much more helpful than
"stinks".)
I'm a re-tread, getting back into modern 35mm after many years away; so the
details of the information you guys know, you just can't assume I also know.
I'm not that far "in" (hip?) yet... (And I don't know as much as I thought I
did to begin with, either.)
I did not know, for instance, that when zoom lenses say f4 to f5.6, it means
the fstop changes with the focal length, and when the lens says only f4 it
means f4 throughout the entire focal length range.... (Although now it seems
obvious to me. Hah!)
So thanks very much Aaron for expanding your opinion and your factual
information. This is helpful to me.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: So, then what is a good lens for what I want to do?
>
>
> dosk wrote:
>
> > (IMO "stinks" is not a very communicative response....)
>
> Heh, sorry. I was hoping someone else would chime in with a more
> detailed response.
>
> Okay...
>
> The contrast is very poor.
>
> It is not sharp at 28mm or 105mm, noticeably on a 4x6 print (to me). At
> 28mm f5.6 it was less sharp than my much-maligned SMC-M 28mm f2.8 wide
> open. Pentax' 28-70 f4 kicked its ass quite seriously through their
> equivalent ranges. I bring this lens up because, while the Sigma is an
> f2.8 at 28mm, it is an f4 at 105mm, and if you're shooting sporty stuff
> you'll end up at the longer end, probably, more often than you'll find
> yourself at 28mm. The Pentax, however, is an f4 all the way through the
> range, but it doesn't have as much reach.
>
> If you don't mind manual focus, I'd suggest searching for a used Vivitar
> Series 1 70-210 f3.5. It's an f3.5 through the whole range, quite sharp
> and built like a tank. There have also been a couple of good Pentax
> 200mm f4 primes that you may be able to find used (again, they are
> manual focus). Or you could do like me and luck into a cheap SMC-A*
> 200mm f2.8. :)
>
> I also once possessed the Pentax 28-135 f4 lens (manual focus), and
> while it was pretty sharp and fast, the minimum focussing distance stank
> on it (it was something like 5 or 6 feet), so I sold it. For
> basketball, it'd probably be just perfect, and again it's an f4 all the
> way through.
>
> I've never tried one, but there's also that Pentax 70-210 f4.
>
> You're right, though, for the price, there's nothing like it available.
> Maybe you should find a store with it in stock and convince them to let
> you put it on your camera and shoot a roll around the store for
> evaluation purposes? That way you can judge for yourself whether or not
> it's acceptable. And, I'll admit it, I'm a complete picky bastard, and
> having that SMC-A* 200mm f2.8 has just made me worse. I will say that
> the Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 definitely outperformed the "Pentax" 28-200mm
> (the first generation one). Needless to say, I have a very poor opinion
> of the 28-200 and of 28-200s in general.
>
> Aaron
>
> so, is that more helpful than "stinks"? :)
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Visit the PUG at
> http://pug.komkon.org.
>
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Visit the PUG at
http://pug.komkon.org.
