For me, I was hoping to have a constant F4 zoom that could be used in place of my heavy Tokina 80-200/2.8. Based on the specs and price, it doesn't seem like it. The focal range is about right, but I was hoping for an optic to be an equal companion to the DA 16-45. F/5.6 at the long end is just a bit slower than I was hoping for. I will have to take a wait and see attitude rather than rushing out to buy it.
-- Best regards, Bruce Friday, March 4, 2005, 12:06:01 PM, you wrote: j> Is it really necessary that Pentax *has* to charge a lot of j> money to provide a good lens? j> I hope the DA50-200 performs well. It's a nice size and a useful j> range. j> -------------- j> I hope that it performs well too. But lenses are priced j> according to their intended optical quality, and Pentax does not j> have a good record with consumer telezooms. If it comes in at a low j> price I will be cautious about buying it. If the price turns out to j> be higher I will be more confident and will probably buy it. j> I have learned through trial and error that price is a better j> predictor of optical quality than magazine tests or user j> testimonials -- for my uses, anyway. j> I would be very, very happy to be wrong about this. I guess the j> bottom line for me will be whether it performs equal to the old SMC j> F 70-210. If so, I will probably buy and use it. If not, the older j> telezoom continues in my kit. j> Joe
