> Which 300/4.5 do I have? It must be the F. Mine has a tripod mount, and is > wonderfully small, smaller than my FA200/4 macro.
Yep, that's the "F". I really like to know the reason for the lack of tripod mount on the FA. Probably cost? And my FA is not smaller than my "A*" 200mm f 4.0 macro. Kenneth Waller http://tinyurl.com/272u2f ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: 300mm 2.8 AF: Sigma vs Pentax > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kenneth Waller" > Subject: Re: 300mm 2.8 AF: Sigma vs Pentax > > >> FWIW - >> >> I have the FA 300mm f4.5, Its a wonderful lens even if it doesn't have a >> tripod mount. >> >> Unless you absolutely, positively need the extra light a 2.8 aperture >> provides, I find it very hard to justify the extra cost of the 2.8 300mm >> over the 4.5 300mm. > > Which 300/4.5 do I have? It must be the F. Mine has a tripod mount, and is > wonderfully small, smaller than my FA200/4 macro. > > William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
