Thanks, Jerome. I've been thinking about the 80-320. However, if consensus is that some third party maker's lens will beat it at 300, I will go for that one. Thanks for showing the pictures. The Komodo Dragon looks really good. And yes, this zoom would partly replace a 28-200 (FA) zoom here too.
Thanks, Lasse ----- Original Message ----- From: "jerome" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:14 PM Subject: Re: Which 300 zoom should I buy? > Quoting Lasse Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Any suggestions on a 70-300 zoom AF, consumer price > > level but with good resolution at the long end? > > Here's a suggestion, and some reasoning to go behind it <gasp!>. > > Particularly since you metioned "consumer price level", I'd have to suggest the > very economical Pentax 80-320mm. I own this lens, and for quite a while it was > my only lens beyond the 100mm range. Overall, the 80-320mm is a good performing > lens, and once stopped down to f8 or f11 the sharpness holds up to the best of > them. Admittedly, the quality does drop off at the long end, but I think it > still holds its own since this is very typical of most lenses in this > category. In fact, after toting around an 300mm f2.8 for a while, I intend to > get back to using this VERy light weight (and arguably flimsy) lens more often. > I think the optics outshine the build quality, and make the price look like > quite reasonable. > > I was also told that the lens tests done by Popular Photography gave the 80 - > 320 ratings of excellent to very good, depending on the focal length. However, > if you are planning to work mostly in the 300mm range, then the FA 300 f4.5 > would be a better choice as others have suggested. > > In terms of resolution, well, I guess what you deem "visually acceptable" is > quite subjective. My personal findings are that, when dealing with things that > have "large scale detail" (like the close-ups of the elephants in the link > below) this lens hasn't let me down one bit. Detail rendering in these > situations has been satisfactory for me, even close to the longer end. However, > I try to avoid 320mm... even staying around 280 to 300mm seems to be noticeably > better, and usually that only means taking another step or two forward. > However, things that have details on a smaller scale (e.g., bird photos where > the subject takes up only a small fraction of the frame) at 250mm or higher > tend to leave a lot to be desired. But again, I doubt this is atypical for such > lenses. In short, overall, I think you get some pretty dorn good optics for the > price. > > > By the way, here are some photos taken with it. This is what I mean by "details > on a larger scale" (sorry, didn't know how else to explain that). > > these two were taken at about 250mm: > http://www.exposedfilm.net/g1_00212.htm > http://www.exposedfilm.net/g1_powl3.htm > > this one (I think) in the 200mm range: > http://www.exposedfilm.net/g1_00313.htm > > and these three all taken at the long end, (300mm or higher) wide open. Even > the 320mm f5.6 photos don't look too bad here (but alas, it is the internet). > http://www.exposedfilm.net/g5_pdogs.htm > > (click the thumbnails for larger versions) > > > you can notice the softness (?) in these last three shots, but it's still > worlds better than my old 28-200mm zoom. > > > Hope that helps. > - jerome > >
