The prime should be quite a bit better than the zoom, particularly wide open. Fewer compromises. It might also be more compact. Paul On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:18 AM, Cotty wrote:
>> DA*200/2.8. > > Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a > prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available > (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to > the prime) ? > > I can understand a 300 or 400 at 2.8, but not a 200. > > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com > _____________________________ > > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
