Perhaps, but the 150 is frequently a bargain. In 35mm I frequenly use the 85/1.,8, so the 150 is reasonably close to that. However I would prefer a 200 (or the leaf shutter 165), and one of these days I'll own one, but perhaps not soon. I've read a number of bad reviews of the older 300, and the new one is very expensive. "J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist > > Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 10:33 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: 6x7 LENSES > > > > > > William Robb wrote: > > > > > > Whatever. In my own small collection of 6x7 lenses, I would > > > place the 135 macro sharpest, then the 105mm, then the 90mm LS, > > > then the 45mm, then the 75mm. The 75mm is also very flare prone, > > > in my tests. I definitely have an old version 75mm f/4.5. They > > > may well have improved it recently, but I would definitely avoid > > > the old version. > > > > > Thanks for the rundown. A lot of people have high praise for the 135 > > macro. It's also quite pricey, but the 105 seems to be a relative > > bargain. However, I think I'm going to look for a 45 or 55. That will > > give me a good landscape lens to go with the 150, which hopefully will > > prove a good portrait lens. > > - > 150 is too short for ports IMHO. That equiv to a 75 mm lens > in 35mm. 200 would be much better and possibly even 300. > JCO > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
