On Aug 8, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: > On 8/7/2010 6:18 PM, gldnbearz wrote: >> If you think that the build is plasticky, it's pretty much the same >> as the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5. They are roughly the same length when fully >> extended (and slightly wobbly), with the 24-90 being just a bit larger >> in circumference. > > It occurs to me that perchance these lenses were introduced when Pentax was > in the direst straights ever. So they made their usual brilliant work on > optics but cut everything that they could cut in mechanics, and even beyond > that...
I think it was more a matter of building inexpensive lenses to satisfy what at the time was a rather unsophisticated market for Pentax. But the buyers got a lot of lens for their money. I had the 24-105/3.2-4.5 and found it very good. Sold it only when I bought the DA* trio. Paul > > Out of three lenses (Tamron 28-75, Sigma 24-60 and Pentax 24-90) I favor > Pentax the most (given of course the same apertures starting and including > F5.6). But both Sigma and Tamron are good samples, Tamron being excellent so > that I am keeping all three of them. > > And surely I thank you wholeheartedly for the smooth transaction you and I > had... > > Boris > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
