I didn't see the 50-135 as that much smaller either. Until I had both in hand. 
And as Bill said, it is also faster.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 15, 2013, at 12:51 AM, Aahz Maruch <a...@pobox.com> wrote:

> 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.

-- 
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.

Reply via email to