Second thoughts on this, I find it so funny because you seem to have a very basic fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between prime and zooms optical designs. THERE IS NO WAY that a zoom can be better than a prime for a give amount of money no matter what focal lenght range. What I found so funny is the way you posted this, you try to make is sound like a zoom is BETTER/NECESSARY than/vs. a prime for some focal lengths, thats just plain misleading or false or hogwash or whatever. Any of those good zooms mentioned could/probably are easily matched with primes and most likely could match them optically while reducing cost or increasing speed or both, or BEAT them optically while maintaining costs. Zooms are always an optical compromise vs. primes at ANY focal length!
JC OCONNELL [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: DA 55-300 LBA Actually, Superwide zooms these days often exceed the performance of primes, look at Nikon's recent 14-24mm f2.8, which matches or exceeds any prime in its range except the Zeiss C/Y mount 21mm Distagon, their older 17-35mm f2.8 AF-S is nearly as good, outmatching pretty much any lens in its range except for the exotic German glass. Wider than 20mm, nothing can touch the Nikkor 14-24. Nikon's 200-400 f4 VR is similar in being able to match or exceed prime performance. Of course, either of these lenses is a significant investment ($1800 for the 14-24, $6000 for the 200-400). -Adam On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:38 PM, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In general I have found that most telezooms are softer > at the long end than the short end and most primes > at the same focal length as the long end of zoom > will easily beat the zoom at the long end. For this reason, I try to > avoid telezooms ( and wide zooms, and extended range zooms for that > matter ). > > For some reason, the closer you get to "normal lenses" > in focal length, the better zooms do, but super wide > OR super long zooms, no go! > > JC OCONNELL > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Toine > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:26 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: DA 55-300 LBA > > > I sold my 80-320 to finance this lba. My only problem with the 80-320 > was lens creep while walking. Corner sharpness is a little better on > the 80-320 which isn't a surprise for a FA lens. Contrast and image > quality at 300 is better with the 55-300. At the wide end the 80-320 > has very good image quality, maybe the best of the two. > > > > -- > 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. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- 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.
