Cameron Hood wrote:
> <snip>
> Also, we really need some good
> lenses in between the 85 1.4 and the 200 2.8 that aren't macro, or the
> exorbitantly priced behemoth of a 80 - 200 2.8 ( Even though I am now a
> semi-professional photographer, I still can't justify its price when, for
> about the same money, I could buy a 67II and a nice wide angle lens). How
> about a nice reasonably priced 105, maybe a 135 again, perhaps a 180, or
> better yet, an 80-200 f4!
What do you think is wrong with the current FA 135? It's really a
*great* lens, well built, fairly compact, and focuses very close. It's
even good wide open.
The only improvement I could suggest for it would be a more robust
focusing ring, but otherwise I think it's fantastic, and I own some nice
lenses.
Still, I agree that a 80-200/4 would be nice. So would a 100/2. I'm
betting now that Pentax has upgraded (hopefully) the standard zooms with
the 24-90, they'll turn their attention to the tele-zooms.
tv
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
