My second most used lens is my 300mm f4..5 FA. . Kenneth Waller. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Telephoto...?
> 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
