JC OConnell wrote: > >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=20382864 > >Maybe thats a better lens for possibly the same or less money? I dont >know but it would be worth investigating, no?
I had one--bought it from a member of this list (or its predecessor) for ~$1100 around 2000. Nice glass, but really big and really heavy. I sold it for $2000 on eBay in 2006 and bought my 31, 43, and 77 limited lenses with the $$$. I use them far more than I ever used my FA* 80-200 F2.8. I also had an FA* 28-70 F2.8 lens. It worked ok, but didn't seem all that durably built. Some other folks on this list had terrible troubles with theirs. I sold it for what I paid for it, so no net loss there. What keeps me from buying the 60-250 (besides the $$$) at this point is my lack of trust in the Pentax DA* lenses. I have no interest whatsoever in dropping more than $1000 for something that may or may not have a fatal design/manufacturing flaw. I have a 16-50. It went back to Pentax USA twice because of quality control problems. The second time they replaced it with a different copy. It seems ok, but I've lost some confidence. I decided to stay away from the 50-135 due to the rash of SDM failure reports at a couple of different forums. Pentax is going to have to convince me that they can reliably manufacture durable lenses before I buy another one. Maybe a year from now, if the 60-250's out "in the wild" are still working, I'll consider one. --Mark -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
