John Francis commented:
> Mike Johnston observed:
> > The quality of ALL 28-200mm zooms is poor. It's too extreme
> > a range and the market demands a small size and low price.
> > It's possible to design a GOOD 28-200, but it would be
> > the size of a fast 400mm and cost as much as a used car.
> Canon do a 35-350 variable-aperture zoom (a 10x zoom range, even
> more than the 7x of a 28-200). And while it is at least as large
> as a 400/5.6, its 'only' somewhere around $1700 street price.
Yeah, and that's as much as I've ever paid for a car (and a *lot*
more than I've paid for most).
-- Glenn, realizing why I
have had so many car
problems over the years
PS: When I first handled a 67II and decided that I wanted to
someday own one, I observed that the cost of a 67II was about
the same as the trade-in value of my car, and that once I added
in a finder and lens, it was up to the replacement value of my
car. (This car, worth more than any I've bought, was a gift.
I can't afford to replace it. Which makes me really nervous
whenever it has problems.)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
