From:
"Bong Manayon"
> For Pentax? The Tamron site says it's only for C & N...
>
> Bong
>
> On 9/12/07, Paulus Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have that lens (Tamron 300/2.8 AF) and can confirm that its a great lens.
But that was not always so.
Tamron (and Tokina) *USED TO* offer s
>
> From: "Bong Manayon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/09/12 Wed AM 07:19:32 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm
>
> For Pentax? The Tamron site says it's only for C & N...
>
> Bong
There _
>
> From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/09/11 Tue PM 11:09:34 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm
>
> > But my first thoughts are "BIG!" and "HEAVY!"
>
> Big &
OTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För mike wilson
> Skickat: den 11 september 2007 22:53
> Till: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Ämne: Re: The occasional 300mm
>
> John Francis wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:53:01PM +, mike wilson wrote:
> >
> >>>From:
From:
mike wilson
> From: Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 2007/09/11 Tue PM 12:30:41 GMT
> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm
> >
> > Hal Davis wrote:
>
>> > > What are thoughts on the P
ay.:-)
Dave
>
> Kenneth Waller
> http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> From: Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> &
ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm
>
>>
>> From: Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: 2007/09/11 Tue PM 12:30:41 GMT
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm
>>
>> Hal Davis wrote:
>&
John Francis wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:53:01PM +, mike wilson wrote:
>
>>>From: Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Date: 2007/09/11 Tue PM 12:30:41 GMT
>>>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>>Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm
>>
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:53:01PM +, mike wilson wrote:
>
> >
> > From: Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 2007/09/11 Tue PM 12:30:41 GMT
> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm
> >
> > Hal Davis w
Mail List
> >To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'"
> >Subject: RE: The occasional 300mm
> >Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:06:56 +0200
> >
> >I got the FA 80-320/4.5-5.6 for many years (the black edition) but
> >almost never use it because I find it ve
; From: "Henk Terhell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'"
>> Subject: RE: The occasional 300mm
>> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:06:56 +0200
>>
>> I got the FA 80-320/4.5-5.6 for
>
> From: Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/09/11 Tue PM 12:30:41 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm
>
> Hal Davis wrote:
> > What are thoughts on the Pentax A 300mm f2.8?
>
> It's a great lens,
Hal Davis wrote:
> What are thoughts on the Pentax A 300mm f2.8?
It's a great lens, but /expensive/. I paid less for all of my cameras
and lenses put together ... well, that's a /little/ bit of an
exaggeration, but not a terrible one. ;-)
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
What are thoughts on the Pentax A 300mm f2.8?
From: "Henk Terhell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'"
Subject: RE: The occasional 300mm
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:06:56 +0200
I got the FA 80-320/4.5-5
Yeah, there is that new website :-D ...
I looked and there were more submissions of the FAJ 75-300 (50+) as
compared to the FA 80-320 (20+). I guess the FAJ is more accessible
than the 320. Looking at the shots however, makes me lean further to
the FA 80-320...I dunno but they feel/look better.
On 9/11/07, Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Or, if you're looking to spend enough on a lens to buy a small car, you
> could seek out the FA* 80-200. :-) I think someone posted a FS on PDML
> for one in the last few days. (1,400 euro if I recall correctly).
>
Probably not. I need a ne
Bong Manayon wrote:
> My professional work does not really require anything longer than my
> 28-105 or 135mm lenses but ever so often I wished I had something
> longer. I had a Sigma 55-200 for a while but I sold that one. I was
> thinking of getting the DA 50-200 but I would like to use it on m
72u2f
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm
>
>
> > My previous reply to this message showed up as a blank, so I'll try again.
> >
> > I've gotten very good performance from both the
FWIW -
third time on my machine.
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm
> My previous reply to this message showed up as a blank, so I'll try again.
>
> I've gotten very good
Mine has some creep, and its abit lose in the focusing. I tend to move
it slightly when hand holding.
I use it on a pod now when i use it.
Dave
On 9/10/07, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that range, I have the A70-210 f4 and love it. It is very sharp
> and the push/pull zoom is very quick
Sorry that should have read:
...A 70-210 joint second highest resolution, higher contast
than M 200/4
John
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:00:52 +0100, John Whittingham wrote
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:57:22 -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote
> > On Sep 10, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Bong Manayon wrot
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:57:22 -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote
> On Sep 10, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Bong Manayon wrote:
> > So far, not a vote for the FA J 75-300 but the FA 80-320 creeping up
> > as a possible contender. I'm listening...
>
> I have no experience with the FA-J lens, but the 80-320 was a p
In that range, I have the A70-210 f4 and love it. It is very sharp
and the push/pull zoom is very quick. They are generally pretty
inexpensive on ebay and a bonus feature is that it has a "macro"
ability where you can get close up pics with I think about 1/3 or so
size. The only drawbacks are tha
My previous reply to this message showed up as a blank, so I'll try again.
I've gotten very good performance from both the FA 80-320 and the DA 50-200.
With the possible exception of some "kit" lenses and FAJ and K-series Takumar
budget lenses, Pentax lenses will deliver quality images when use
The Pentax FA 80-320mm. or the Tamron 70-300 Di can be good choices. I
had the 80-320 until I sold it last year and I found it quite a
competent lens, although a bit soft at focal lengths beyond 250mm. The
Tamron also seems a good choice, and it has a nice close focusing
capability (1:2 magnifi
On Sep 10, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Bong Manayon wrote:
> So far, not a vote for the FA J 75-300 but the FA 80-320 creeping up
> as a possible contender. I'm listening...
I have no experience with the FA-J lens, but the 80-320 was a pretty
nice performer for a low-cost lens when I tested it against t
There is this new website called the Pentax Photog Gallery -
you have images posted there - it allows you to look at photos shot
with specific lenses. You might want to go there and have a look. I
remember quite a few good images coming from the FAJ 75-300 - much
better than I thought it would b
I've gotten very good performance from both the FA 80-320 and the DA 50-200.
With the possible exception of some "kit" lenses and FAJ and K-series Takumar
budget lenses, Pentax lenses will deliver quality images when used correctly.
Of course, there may be sample variation, particularly with le
So far, not a vote for the FA J 75-300 but the FA 80-320 creeping up
as a possible contender. I'm listening...
Thanks!
Bong
On 9/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I've gotten very good performance from both the FA 80-320 and the DA
> 50-200. With the possible exception
And I've gotten very good performance from both the FA 80-320 and the DA
50-200. With the possible exception of some "kit" lenses and FAJ and K-series
Takumar budget lenses, Pentax lenses will deliver quality images when used
correctly. Of course, there may be sample variation, particularly wit
David Savage wrote:
> On 9/10/07, Bong Manayon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone!
>>
>> My professional work does not really require anything longer than my
>> 28-105 or 135mm lenses but ever so often I wished I had something
>> longer. I had a Sigma 55-200 for a while but I sold that
On 9/10/07, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't recommend the DA 50-200. I bought one while on my recent trip
> because I needed something longer than what I had taken with me. And I
> was underwhelmed with it's performance.
>
> The 80-320 isn't too bad for the price. All but the las
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of David J Brooks
> Sent: 10 September, 2007 4:24 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: The occasional 300mm
>
>
> Not sure if it was Bruce or Paul S but one of themhad the
> 80-320 and those pictures looked pretty good.
>
> I
David J Brooks wrote:
>
> I think very highly of the Sigma 300F4.
>
> Dave
Another vote for the Sigma EX AF 300/4. A solid performing "budget" 300
--
Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Not sure if it was Bruce or Paul S but one of themhad the 80-320 and
those pictures looked pretty good.
I think very highly of the Sigma 300F4.
Dave
On 9/10/07, Bong Manayon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> My professional work does not really require anything longer than my
> 28-10
On 9/10/07, Bong Manayon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> My professional work does not really require anything longer than my
> 28-105 or 135mm lenses but ever so often I wished I had something
> longer. I had a Sigma 55-200 for a while but I sold that one. I was
> thinking of getti
>
> From: "Bong Manayon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/09/10 Mon PM 02:05:14 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: The occasional 300mm
>
> Hi everyone!
>
> My professional work does not really require anything longer than my
> 28-105 or 135mm lenses but ever so often I wished I h
I'd definitely take the Tamron 70-300 LD over a FA J 75-300. The Tamron shares
optics with the well regarded Nikon 70-300 ED and is the best of the non-IS
70-300's from the mainstream makers.
-Adam
Bong Manayon wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> My professional work does not really require anything lo
38 matches
Mail list logo
