Alan C wrote:
Having read this thread with interest, I would say the 60-250 is your best bet but it is not cheap. You could add a 1.4x too! Paul had great success with this combination. I have an FA 100-300 which I used before I acquired an HD 55-300. Despite the glowing reviews for the 55-300, I have found it no better than the under-rated 100-300 which can be had for a song.
Interesting. I've found that Nicole's 55-300 is quite pleasantly sharp. There also seem to be three versions of that lens, the DA, the DA-L and the WR.
It has a huge advantage over the 60-250 in that it can easily be carried in my camera bag without displacing multiple other lenses too. Also the fact that I can find them for under $300 used versus $800-900 for the 60-250. Since I do have use of the 80-200/2.8 I don't think that the 60-250 is enough smaller than it to make a huge difference.
-- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc -- 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.
