So was the Pentax F _70-200_ as opposed to the _70-210_.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the Takumar variants were not multi-coated, and were meant to be a low-consumer version of the lens.
Since the specifications aren't published who knows. But the odds are they are identical, (but subject to change without notice).
Trevor Bailey wrote:
--G'day All. I have a similar lens. It is a TAKUMAR-F ZOOM 70-200 4-5.6 I wonder what the difference is between the TAKUMAR and the PENTAX?
Hooroo. Regards, Trevor Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 31 December 2004 11:21 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Strange
Peter Smekal wrote:
I've seen a Pentax F-zoom 70-200 4-5.6 lens for sale, but I can't find any information about it. Bojidars comprehensive site shows a F-zoom 70-210 4-5.6, and a FA-zoom 70-200 4-5.6, but not a F-zoom 70-200. The same for Stan Halpin's site. Is the F-zoom 70-200 4-5.6 a hoax, or ... has anybody seen it? Peter, Sweden
Look on Boz's site under non-smc zooms:
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/_non-SMC/pen-F_70-200f4-5.6.htm l
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
