I suppose this is where certain other brands have an advantage.
In photo stores, you can rent those lenses (and cameras) for a day
or a week, lenses you'd otherwise never use due to their high
prices.
But no Pentex for rent.
I recently visited a store, not only did they not have any Pentax to
rent, they didn't even have a used pentax to sell. Only new stuff,
and just the zooms. But they had lots of certain other brands' used
lenses, both for rent and for sale.
Regards,
___________________________________________________________________
Tonghang Zhou ("Zhou" is pronounced like Joe)
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Paul F. Stregevsky wrote:
> But I'll probably use a 400mm lens for maybe 15 shots a year. At that rate,
> the cost per photo will be astronomical at any price, and perhaps I should
> settle for a $200 specimen. Or a teleconverter, which would spare me the
> need to buy yet another protective filter and carry yet another big lens.
>
> It seems unfair that frequency of use must dictate the quality that it is
> prudent to buy, but I can't escape the math.
>
> It would certainly seem that a well-built lens is an extravagance for
> someone who will probably not see rugged use. So a lens that has a
> reputation for being optically excellent but mechanically mediocre would be
> a good candidate for the infrequent user.
>
> Comments?
-
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 .
