To those that have responded to the original thread, thanks very much
for the replies. However, the replies from Kevin and Jostein, brought up
a question that I had been wondering about myself while pondering lens
options. What determines AF performance? I though that I had, in the
past, read lens reports that talked about how poor or good a lens' AF
performance was and then Kevin and Jostein talk about the *istD's slow
AF performance. So which is responsible for the AF performance? Is it
the lens? the camera? or both? and how does each influence the AF
performance? Inquiring minds want to know....
Thanks,
Larry Cook
This one time, at band camp, "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Pentax lens is getting very hard to find these days, and is
hideously expensive new. It's gone out of production.
I have been pondering this also. I have decided to go with the Sigma
70-200mm 2.8 as it offers much the same as the pentax and is less than
half the price. Can pick these babies up new for a little over $1000.00
Australian dollars ( $US720.00 ). The equivalent Pentax lense, if you
can find one, is listed at $AUD3800.00. The istD auto focus is slooow, so you
need to be on your game a little. I will be using this for indoor dance
photography.
Kind regards
Kevin
---------
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
------------------------------
