The only time I shoot at less than 300 with it is when the subject is something like a ship and it is too close to fit enough in the frame. I would like something longer than 300, especially with birds. The Sigma 28-80 & 100-300 came with the MZ50. The shots taken with the 300 seem better than those with the 28-80. Since 1963 I had been using a Pentax S1 with a 2.2 super Takumar lens and later a Minolta SRT101 with a 1.4 lens. When I bought the MZ50 I hadn't been keeping up with photographic developments and was surprised to find it didn't have a quality Pentax lens. I had been using Kodachrome the whole time I had the mechanical cameras and was dissatisfied with the results I was getting with the Sigma lens. When I bought an Ist I bought the body only and got a Tamron 24-135 lens. I am again happy with the results, so I have no problems going to Tamron. I have been reading lens reviews and found that there is often a big discrepancy between the reviews in magazines and user reviews. For some lenses the user lens reviews range form the best to the worst for the same lens.
Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 8:01 PM Subject: Re: Tele lens for MZ50 > On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, MikeM wrote: > > > Lately I have been using it mainly for trying to get close to birds, though > > it has been inadequate for many. Over the last few weeks I have been using > > it to photograph ships at our local port because the public is excluded from > > the wharves so I have to make do with shots of the ships manoeuvring in the > > river. > > So, are you shooting mostly at 300? Most consumer zooms for Pentax > (F100-300, FA80-320 etc) don't do too well up there (but if you are > happy with the Sigma, you may be happy with them too). Have you > thought of a used Tamron SP 300/5.6? You can get them with a KA > Adaptall mount to suit the MZ-50. Mine was about a quarter of your > budget from a pricey UK shop. > > HTH, > > Kostas > >
