On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:53:01PM +0000, mike wilson wrote: > > > > > From: Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2007/09/11 Tue PM 12:30:41 GMT > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm > > > > Hal Davis wrote: > > > What are thoughts on the Pentax A 300mm f2.8? > > > > It's a great lens, but /expensive/. I paid less for all of my cameras > > and lenses put together ... well, that's a /little/ bit of an > > exaggeration, but not a terrible one. ;-) > > > > The Tamron equivalent seems to be a good lens and can be comparatively cheap.
It is. I used to have the Tamron until I came across the Pentax at a price I couldn't refuse (not as good as $1200, though :-). Realistically you're going to be hard put to tell the difference between the Pentax and the Tamron, either on their own or with the appropriate matched 1.4x teleconverters. I did a brick wall test, and found that they were practically indistinguishable. About the only real difference is that you do, of course, have to use the adaptall mount on the Tamron, and that's one more mechanical linkage to go wrong. > But my first thoughts are "BIG!" and "HEAVY!" The Tamron is no smaller, and hardly any lighter. But it is significantly cheaper (around half the price). At current prices you could probably get a new Sigma 300/2.8 for less than you'd pay for a used Pentax, and get auto-focus as well. I have no first-hand experience of the Sigma, but I've heard people speak well of them. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
