I was not particularly thrilled with the A*300/4.0 that I had. I found it to be a little soft, although a few people suggested that I was using it to photograph objects that were "too close" for optimal performance. Like to work close to my subjects, and rarely, if ever, did I use the lens out to infinity. However, the A*200/2.8 seems to handle closer objects with greater sharpness and somewhat better definition. To be clear, no scientific tests were rendered. I just looked at the photographic results over a period of a year or so, with prints ranging in size from 5x7 to 20x24. In the end I sold the 300 as it didn't get much use and the results it provided weren't stellar enough to keep it for the small amount of use it got. I don't use the A*200/2.8 all that much either, but I still have it. Had I known then what I know now, I'd have purchased an A*300/2.8 instead. I do think the M* and A* 300/4.0 lenses are a reasonable value, but from what I've been reading the later model with the tripod collar may be a better choice.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Stephen Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 11/17/2004 11:24:37 AM > Subject: Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime > > Amita -- > > I concur on the M*300/4 as a very nice hand-holdable long lens. > I use it a lot at the races. My only gripe is that it's a heavy > lens with no tripod collar, meaning I pretty much *have* to > hand-hold. Puting that much unsupported weight on the camera's > lens mount scares me a wee bit, and it does tend to be twitchy > on light- and medium-duty tripods. > > -- Stephen Moore > > > Jens Bladt wrote: > > > I can also recommend the SMC M* 4.0/300mm. It's manual focus of cource. Used > > with the Pentax F 1.7x AF adapter, it becomes a AF 510mm. Truely a nice > > combo. > >
