Well stated John.
I might add that the 600 is THE lens for places such as
Denali National Park where much wild life is visible
from the (only) road. After several visits to Denali
without a 600, I purchased one and used it, (many times
with the 1.4L convertor), on my last visit to the park.
It
John Mustarde wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:49:53 -0500 (EST), you wrote:
Photography can be expensive.
Not really. Sell all those old third-party and second-tier lenses
you've accumulated over the years and get some real Big Glass.
Let's see, an SMCP-M 50/2, a Sears 135/2.8, a Sears
Peter Jansen said:
My point is: if you're going to spend $5000 on a lens,
get a major brand name like Pentax. You're better off
to save a little more to get a better lens. Plus like
John said, there's always used glass for sale that's
cheaper than this Sigma.
The Pentax lens comes for $2000
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:50:45 -0700, John Mustarde wrote:
Photography can be expensive.
Not really.
Not nearly as expensive as auto racing. Thank your lucky stars you're
only interested in photography that much. :-) I've got both diseases.
Speaking of which, I saw an LX
Hi Ryan,
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:28:00 -0600, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
Speaking of which, I saw an LX user at the 100 Acre Woods Rally here in
the States last weekend. I was in a car, so I couldn't talk to him-
anyone on the list?
It wasn't me. I have an LX, but I don't have any idea where
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:24:20 -0500, you wrote:
You really only need a 600/4 and 1.4x TC for birdies.
A subject of interest to me, so comments interspersed.
A 600/4 monster is pretty useless for many birdy situations. It's
great on a tripod for shooting birds that are not moving around much
I've found what seems like the ideal lens for me, the Sigma 300-800mm
f/5.6. Now it costs $5000, so I'm not likely to buy it this decade. But
it looks like it only comes with Sigma, Canon, and Nikon mounts. No
Pentax. Well, if I buy it, I suppose it would be no big deal to add
another 5-10
Photography can be expensive.
Amen, Brother, Amen...
Fred
I'd spend the extra $2000 and get a decent lens.
--- Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've found what seems like the ideal lens for me,
the Sigma 300-800mm
f/5.6. Now it costs $5000, so I'm not likely to buy
it this decade. But
it looks like it only comes with Sigma, Canon
300-800mm
f/5.6. Now it costs $5000, so I'm not likely to buy
it this decade. But
it looks like it only comes with Sigma, Canon, and
Nikon mounts. No
Pentax. Well, if I buy it, I suppose it would be no
big deal to add
another 5-10% to get a camera to dangle from the
back
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:49:53 -0500 (EST), you wrote:
Photography can be expensive.
Not really. Sell all those old third-party and second-tier lenses
you've accumulated over the years and get some real Big Glass.
There's a mint Pentax FA* 600/4 on Ebay for only $3699. A dirt-cheap
bargain.
Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now it costs $5000, so I'm not likely to buy it this decade. ...
Photography can be expensive.
By mounting a 300/2.8 + 1.4X TC on a partial-frame DSLR, you can attain long
(small-birdable) focal lengths AND fast f/stops. I've basically called a
Photography can be expensive.
Not really. Sell all those old third-party and second-tier lenses
you've accumulated over the years and get some real Big Glass.
;-)
There's a mint Pentax FA* 600/4 on Ebay for only $3699. A dirt-cheap
bargain.
A bargain, yes. Dirt cheap, no.
You really
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:50:45 -0700, John Mustarde wrote:
Photography can be expensive.
Not really.
Not nearly as expensive as auto racing. Thank your lucky stars you're
only interested in photography that much. :-) I've got both diseases.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
.
--- Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I've found what seems like the ideal lens for
me,
the Sigma 300-800mm
f/5.6. Now it costs $5000, so I'm not likely to
buy
it this decade. But
it looks like it only comes with Sigma, Canon,
and
Nikon mounts. No
Pentax. Well
15 matches
Mail list logo
