Re: : (

[Herb Chong]

that's my thinking as well. the only way they can lower costs without losing 
quality is to drastically lower the assembly cost. the Vietnamese plant 
might be cheap enough. as i stated when i saw the initial announcement. ED 
glass is more expensive than plain glass and a statement of intended quality 
too. there is no AL in the name, so that is one place to save a bit of 
money. the 16-45 is an ED/AL lens with constant aperture. let's cross our 
fingers and hope that it's going to be excellent even though it doesn't fit 
the normal marketing model.

Herb....
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jtainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: : (


I hope that it performs well too. But lenses are priced according to their 
intended optical quality, and Pentax does not have a good record with 
consumer telezooms. If it comes in at a low price I will be cautious about 
buying it. If the price turns out to be higher I will be more confident 
and will probably buy it.

I have learned through trial and error that price is a better predictor of 
optical quality than magazine tests or user testimonials -- for my uses, 
anyway.

I would be very, very happy to be wrong about this. I guess the bottom 
line for me will be whether it performs equal to the old SMC F 70-210. If 
so, I will probably buy and use it. If not, the older telezoom continues 
in my kit.