I will let this go. Thanks for the opinions, folks. On Mar 19, 2013, at 15:40 , P.J. Alling <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, but Godfrey's awful can be other peoples acceptable. IIRC the Tamron > 18-200mm is like the 28-200 both were available in Pentax livery. (pretty > much the same lens), with better coatings, and similar results. I'm wary of > greater than 3-4x zoom ratios anyway, but the Pentax version of the 28-200 > gave pretty good results on APS-C digital until I knocked it around enough to > cause some decentering. That's a hazard with any complex lens design, but I > despite the seemingly robust construction of the 28-200 it proved to be a bit > fragile. I expect that the internals of the 18-200 won't be any sturdier, > and possibly a lot less so given it's greater range and price point.. > > On 3/19/2013 4:27 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> Tried one. Returned it. Found it awful. >> >> G >> >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Charles Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> There's one of 'em on CL here for $80. >>> >>> Seems like (for my son or daughter) that would be a handy "travel zoom". >>> But not if it sucks. >>> >>> I've used the 28-200 product and found the results to be "ok" at best. >>> >>> Thoughts? Opinions? >>> >>> -Charles >>> -Charles -- Charles Robinson - [email protected] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- 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.
