Pricing can be interesting, I got my smc F 70-210 for less than $70, a few years ago. Even then it was known as a desirable lens optically, (and built like a tank, really hard on the outside, inside there are some weak points but...). I've found that in actual practice it deserves it's reputation. You do have to search for bargains like that one. Good new lenses you pay a premium either way.
mike wilson wrote: >> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: 2007/03/14 Wed PM 11:12:37 GMT >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 >> >> The SMC-A 70-210 f4 typically sells used for nearly the price of a new >> 50-200 DA, the latter is a far less expensive lens, and pretty much a >> match in performance (apart from the variable aperture). >> >> -Adam >> > > I'll buy all the 50-200s you have at the going rate for 70-210s here. Even > retail (although it may have gone up dramatically very recently) it is less > than half the price. > > >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> >>> why not? those lenses were never expensive >>> and a APS version would be less costly to >>> make than a FF version of same quality or >>> better quality for same cost of the FF version. >>> jco >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >>> Thibouille >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:09 PM >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 >>> >>> >>> yeah and sell it for the price they sell this 50-200 ? LOL >>> >>> 2007/3/14, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>>> Jeez, you would think they could at least do >>>> F4 constant in the reduced APS format like they have >>>> done in the past on FF 35mm format many times. >>>> jco >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>>> Of Bruce Dayton >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:33 PM >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 >>>> >>>> >>>> I have resisted buying it so far. I would prefer a better build >>>> quality and a faster (constant) lens. It appears to be very good for >>>> the price. My take is optical quality is better than expected for the >>>> price point, but build quality is consumer level. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> >>>> Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 9:09:54 AM, you wrote: >>>> >>>> SB> Is the 50-200 supposed to be a "consumer" zoom - i.e., designed >>>> SB> more >>>> >>>> SB> to a price point than the highest quality image? For those who >>>> SB> use the lens, are you pleased with it. Paul, and a few others, >>>> SB> seem to be quite happy with theirs, but what about those of you >>>> SB> who don't often comment on such things? >>>> >>>> >>>> SB> Shel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> > > > ----------------------------------------- > Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam > > > -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
