the Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED is rated quite highly if you want to buy new and should be in your budget - note the new WR version would be more pricey than this.
The 50-200 is even cheaper but apparently optically not that great. I haven't used either but I can second Darren's suggestion for an F70-210 - very sharp and good contrast but is quite heavy for what it is. Mine suffered a fall and is now stiff to zoom but otherwise still works well, but I suspect will not get a lot of use now that I have the DA* 60-250 Alastair On 10 December 2013 11:29, Charles Robinson <charl...@visi.com> wrote: > Is there anything out there that is even remotely close to the 50-135 f/2.8 > that costs less than $350, or am I just dreaming? > > I don't shoot concerts often enough (and it's just for fun) to justify even > the used 50-135 at KEH for $500, even though I know that's a bargain for that > lens. > > But I can see that my used $35 smc PENTAX-F 80-200mm F4.7-5.6 is really > what's holding my image quality back these days. > > Any ideas/suggestions for something "good but not GREAT"? I have the feeling > what I have right now is, at best, "OK, but not awful". :-( > > -Charles > > -- > Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com > Minneapolis, MN > http://charles.robinsontwins.org > http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
