On 11/29/2010 7:54 AM, eckinator wrote:
2010/11/29 P. J. Alling<[email protected]>:
I haven't been too excited about this, it's the aps-c functional equivalent
of the 28-200mm a lens that as a class fails to impress.
true to a point - similar zoom factor but probably easier to build and calculate
The preview, (I wouldn't call it a review) actually is nicely positive, but
I question the reviewers judgment when he states, "...the lenses that most
closely resembled it were the 17-70mm F4 and the 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, *both of
which have different uses*." (Emphasis mine). Well no not really, at least
in the case of the 18-250, they are pretty much designed for the same
usage, a lens that covers everything you're likely to shoot.
what is so bad about that? I'm trying to make it policy to always
carry a camera plus refconverter and as much as I prefer the 16-50
over the 18-250 the former sometimes lacks on the long end. 18-135 is
still not ideal but it has WR which the 18-250 doesn't and I don't see
my dream zoom on the horizon any time soon.
Nothing bad about the lens. My beef is with this particular author not
seeming to know the what the target audience for the product he's
reviewing. Hell just about anyone on this list could produce a review
of this caliber and we don't generally get review equipment let alone
paid for our opinions, which I;m assuming is the case.
Additionally he displays a lack of historical perspective since the 28-200mm
wasn't a cheap lens when introduced, not only being more expensive, when
inflation is taken into account, and a larger percentage of the kit's cost,
when taking into account the difference in price of the cameras it was
designed for.
true but he shares that deficiency with millions of people who've lost
their grasp of prices =/
He mentions a nit, the reversed positions of the focus and zoom rings
vis-à-vis the normal Pentax practice, which I doubt will bother it's target
audience as they will most likely never own another lens.
I politely disagree - I have four lenses each of Pentax and 3rd
parties and I'm likely to buy it nonetheless - not for another year
though :[ position of rings would be the least obstacle in my book -
the crappy tiny focus ring on the 18-250 didn't stop me either
You're not the target demographic, and you're at least a little bit
weird, but that's a different issue... ;-)
now Pentax if you could please make that DA* 11-16 reality and follow
up with a DA* or WR 16-80 or17-85 or 20-100 or whatever - heck, I
might even be tempted to extend my always carry policy to a small bag
and a second lens and flash
Ned, are you listening?
Cheers
Ecke
--
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral
bankruptcy."
-Woody Allen
--
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.
