You can find a short comparison here under 200mm/f4.0 http://www.concentric.net/~smhalpin/
At 04:58 PM 12/13/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Friday, December 13, 2002, at 12:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> And I am wondering which telephoto (to 200) or prime (to 200 or 300) >> that I might get. One which I won't have to pay more than $100 for (or >> much more than that). Pentax or other brand. (Don't want much, do I?) > >You could look for an M 200/4 or the earlier and larger 200/4. You'd >like the feel and probably like the quality better than a cheap zoom >that goes to 200. I've asked before but I didn't see any answer: Has anyone ever compared the K 200/4 with the M 200/4? Just curious, really. My small/light kit includes a Cosina 200/4.0 that I got on eBay for $20.00 (stuck diaphragm but a quick, easy repair) and which actually turned out to be a pretty nice lens. Slow but sharp. Solid construction. You see them on eBay quite often and, though I'd be surprised if they were as good as the M 200/4, I'd be also be surprised if they weren't miles better than any cheap zoom in that focal length range. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
