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.
