This is actually a reply to Pal's reply to me (which I only saw in the
archive).
Pal said:
"Huh? Why wouldn't it merit the term high performance? Performance has
nothing to do with the speed of the lens. In fact, it is easyer to design
a slower high performance lens than a fast one. Many of the "fast" zoom
lenses aren't high performance when compared to a prime. Look at the
complaints on some of the Canon lenses. I have one really high performance
zoom Pentax lens and it's maxium speed is 5.6! It is great at all
apertures and all focusing distances and the result is indistinguishable
from a good prime."
To which I say, that a slow lens with good optical performance is still a
slow lens. In my view, to fully earn the title "high-performance" a lens
has to be a good performer in all respects, and that includes speed.
However, Pal, you're entitled to your view, though personally I think it
is unlikely that Pentax will produce another slow zoom in the 50-200mm
range.
And comparing primes to zooms is not germane to the argument. We are
discussing what Pentax called a high-performance zoom.
John
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:09:22 -0000, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is almost certainly going to be a 50-200ish f2.8. Quote me in
a few months if I'm wrong and the beer will be on me.
Collection in person.
A deal, John. :-)
Wouldn't mind buying you one if you're right, either. :-)
Cheers,
Jostein
A deal, Jostein! (You did mean the lens? Oh, just the beer. Never
mind.)
John
PS: I only seem to be getting about 50% of messages. Never saw this,
'til Dario responded to Paul's response.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
