K 35/3.5 is $120+, not exactly dirt cheap. 135/3.5 and 50/1.7 are cheap in any manufacturer's lineup. of course they are good.
best, mishka On 6/1/05, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 28/3.5, 35/3.5, 135/3.5, 200/4, 50/1.7, just to name a few. > All inexpensive, all very good to excellent. > For all 5 of the above I paid less than $150.00, I'm very > pleased with all of them. > > Don > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 7:26 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? > > > > > > i am just curious: all this time i have been hearing about > > "inexpensive excellent pentax lenses". what are they > > (i mean, both, inexpensive AND excellent)? > > > > from my personal experience, on average, excellent > > older pentax glass costs either same or more than the competition > > > > not that i am complaining: i am very happy with the lenses I have. > > but they have been nowhere close to "inexpensive" (well, by > > "35mm japanese" standards anyway) > > > > best, > > mishka > > > > On 6/1/05, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I hate to say this but the only things that have kept me > > > loyal to Pentax are the viewfinders and the abundance of > > > inexpensive yet excellent lenses. > > > Can the other two make a similar claim? > > > > > > Don (Who just bought a Nikon FM to see what the 'other > > > side' was really like.) > > > >
