Thanks. Evidently they only show up as blanks on mine. I'll remember that. Paul -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > FWIW - > third time on my machine. > > Kenneth Waller > http://tinyurl.com/272u2f > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm > > > > My previous reply to this message showed up as a blank, so I'll try again. > > > > I've gotten very good performance from both the FA 80-320 and the DA > > 50-200. > > With the possible exception of some "kit" lenses and FAJ and K-series > > Takumar > > budget lenses, Pentax lenses will deliver quality images when used > > correctly. > > Of course, there may be sample variation, particularly with less-expensive > > lenses, but I have yet to encounter it. If you need 300 mm reach and > > speed > > isn't critical, the FA 80-320 is a good inexpensive choice. The DA 50-200 > > will > > vignette at wider focal lengths on your film cameras. But, dollar for > > dollar, > > it's a very good lens. Speed is expensive. > > Paul > > DA 50-200: > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6119287 > > > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5458304&size=lg > > FA 80-320: > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3113513&size=lg > > > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > > From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> David Savage wrote: > >> > On 9/10/07, Bong Manayon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > > From: "Bong Manayon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> So far, not a vote for the FA J 75-300 but the FA 80-320 creeping up > >> as a possible contender. I'm listening... > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> Bong > >> > >> On 9/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > And I've gotten very good performance from both the FA 80-320 and the > >> > DA > >> 50-200. With the possible exception of some "kit" lenses and FAJ and > >> K-series > >> Takumar budget lenses, Pentax lenses will deliver quality images when > >> used > >> correctly. Of course, there may be sample variation, particularly with > >> less-expensive lenses, but I have yet to encounter it. If you need 300 > >> mm reach > >> and speed isn't critical, the FA 80-320 is a good inexpensive choice. The > >> DA > >> 50-200 will vignette at wider focal lengths on your film cameras. But, > >> dollar > >> for dollar, it's a very good lens. > >> > Paul > >> > DA 50-200: > >> > > >> > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6119287http://photo.net/photodb/photo?ph > >> oto_id=6119287 > >> > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5458304&size=lg > >> > FA 80-320: > >> > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3113513&size=lg > >> > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > >> > From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > David Savage wrote: > >> > > > On 9/10/07, Bong Manayon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> Hi everyone! > >> > > >> > >> > > >> My professional work does not really require anything longer than > >> > > >> my > >> > > >> 28-105 or 135mm lenses but ever so often I wished I had something > >> > > >> longer. I had a Sigma 55-200 for a while but I sold that one. I > >> > > >> was > >> > > >> thinking of getting the DA 50-200 but I would like to use it on my > >> > > >> film bodies as well so why not something like the FA J 75-300? My > >> > > >> problem is I could never really get my hands on one (there's none > >> > > >> in > >> > > >> the Philippines; have to get it online) to test it and it does > >> > > >> suffer > >> > > >> bad rep for being 'cheap' so I wonder how bad it really is. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Your thoughts? Is that a waste of time and should I get something > >> > > >> like the FA 80-320 (there's a couple of old stocks floating around > >> > > >> locally)? Or, maybe even Sigma's or Tamron's 70-300? Their > >> > > >> prices > >> > > >> float around $150... > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > I can't recommend the DA 50-200. I bought one while on my recent > >> > > > trip > >> > > > because I needed something longer than what I had taken with me. > >> > > > And I > >> > > > was underwhelmed with it's performance. > >> > > > > >> > > > The 80-320 isn't too bad for the price. All but the last 2 of these > >> > > > were taken with it: > >> > > > > >> > > > <http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/GESO/GESO_001/index.html> > >> > > > > >> > > > I'm pretty harsh on these consumer zooms, since having got the FA* > >> 80-200mm. > >> > > > > >> > > > Cheers, > >> > > > > >> > > > Dave > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > These are really quite impressive for an old, slow, "consumer" zoom. > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Remember, it's pillage then burn. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Bong Manayon > >> http://www.bong.uni.cc > >> > >> -- > >> 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
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
