Christian wrote: > If you want a telephoto lens for reach, obviously the 300mm is the > better choice. It all depends on what you want to shoot.
Around here I often feel like a "telephoto fish in a wide-angle pond" since so many of the "regulars" shoot "in close", at least from my perspective. I shoot a lot more at more than 100mm than less, personally (probably something like 5:1 or more). The reason for that explanation is to say that a 300 doesn't offer all that much reach if you shoot mostly tele, like I do, but may well be too much if you usually shoot at less than 100mm, and especially if you usually shoot at 50mm or less, like so many around here seem to. I'm not sure where you "usually live" in the focal length landscape, but I'd urge you to test at least one of the two focal lengths before plopping down your hard-earned cash. One might not be enough and the other might be too much for the shooting you do or plan to do. Personally, if I wasn't part Scot, and relatively underfunded, I'd be after the 600mm and 1200mm beasties. :-). OTOH, the only things I have less than 50mm are the 16-45/4 and a beat up old manual focus Sigma MC 28/2.8. Oh, and the Zenitar 16/2.8 FE, but I don't count it because it's a FE and the 16-45 covers it. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
