On Thu, Feb 14, 2013, Bill wrote: > On 14/02/2013 10:05 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote: >>On Thu, Feb 14, 2013, Stan Halpin wrote: >>> >>>Ones that I wouldn't let go? The 77 Limited. The FA*200/4 Macro. The >>>holy trinity of DA* zoom lenses: 16-50, 50-135, and 60-250. >> >>What do you see as the advantage of having both 50-135 and 60-250? >>(Other people have said not to bother.) > > The 50-135 is a stop faster and a lot smaller.
When would those advantages be enough to not bother using the 60-250? Putting it another way, when is it worth using a zoom with less than 3x range? (I'm particularly curious because some people have been pushing prime lenses instead of zooms, and it seems to me that a zoom with less than 3x range makes it worth looking at primes. So why not just use the 100mm macro?) I guess I don't see the 50-135 as a "lot" smaller. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- 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.
