It's 9 oz for the 50-200 vs 15.5 for the 55-300. That is a big difference, although it's a lot more reach especially for animals. Just to complicate your day, Ann.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Ann Sanfedele <ann...@nyc.rr.com> wrote: > > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> The DA 50-200 is a lot of lens for the money. Very good image quality. >> Build quality is just okay, but I shot around ten thousand frames with one >> and didn't break it. Sold it in like new condition when I bought the DA* >> 60-250. Of course the DA* 50-135 is very good, but it's not inexpensive. I >> love the DA* 60-250 and use it more than any other lens. But I don't >> consider weight to be an impediment. I shot with the 6x7 regularly for a >> couple of years. Now that's heavy. >> Paul >> On Feb 8, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Paul Ewins wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Hi folks, >>> I'm looking for a zoom to complement the 17-70/4 which I recently >>> acquired to replace the 18-55 kit lens. I'm looking for quality optics >>> without huge weight or huge price. >>> If the 60-250/4 was a little cheaper and a little lighter it would be a >>> done deal, but it isn't. >>> > > Well, weight is an issue for me as well... but I would also like a zoom with > more reach than the Canon lens I sold to be able to buy it. > I'm leaning toward the DA 50-200... I bet the 55-300 is too heavy. I want > it for getting tight shots of zoo critters or birdies in the wild. > > ann > > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
