In a message dated 9/22/2006 10:28:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was thinking that you bought an A 70-210 constant f4 aperture. The
F 70-210 is AF and a variable aperture (slower) also meaning it could
be a bit smaller and lighter.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
=
Act
I was thinking that you bought an A 70-210 constant f4 aperture. The
F 70-210 is AF and a variable aperture (slower) also meaning it could
be a bit smaller and lighter.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Thursday, September 21, 2006, 8:30:42 AM, you wrote:
Eac> In a message dated 9/21/2006 3:29:11 AM Pac
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Matt
Kelch
Sendt: 21. september 2006 03:13
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Still in search of that telephoto zoom
Well, I managed to nab two of the elusive Pentax 70-210 f4 lenses, and
received one of them today. I was pretty shocked by how much it
weighed
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:28:52AM -0400, Adam Maas wrote:
> David J Brooks wrote:
> > Quoting Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> On 21/9/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
> >>
> >>> At 555gm it's not THAT heavy,
> >> My 1D with 70-200 2.8 aboard weighs in at 2875 gm. You don't know
In a message dated 9/21/2006 3:29:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The SMC-F 70-210 is what I was thinking of. I take it its pretty heavy
and I'd be better off with the DA 50-200mm?
==
I bought one getting reading for the K10D. It's big and heavy, but not as big
an
It depends on what you mean by heavy. It's built to take a beating.
All metal construction, except for the aperture ring. But not much
heavier than the A or M 200mm f4.
Matt Kelch wrote:
>The SMC-F 70-210 is what I was thinking of. I take it its pretty heavy
>and I'd be better off with the
David J Brooks wrote:
> Quoting Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On 21/9/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>> At 555gm it's not THAT heavy,
>> My 1D with 70-200 2.8 aboard weighs in at 2875 gm. You don't know
>> you're born!
>
> I'd kill for only 2875gm'S
>
> lol.
>
> The D ser
Quoting Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 21/9/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> At 555gm it's not THAT heavy,
>
> My 1D with 70-200 2.8 aboard weighs in at 2875 gm. You don't know
> you're born!
I'd kill for only 2875gm'S
lol.
The D series woth the 70-200 VR must be about tha
On 21/9/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
>At 555gm it's not THAT heavy,
My 1D with 70-200 2.8 aboard weighs in at 2875 gm. You don't know you're born!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
At 555gm it's not THAT heavy, and it's a very good lens, and solidly
constructed. I haven't seen any comparisons with the 50-200, but I would
be surprised if it's appreciably better than the F 70-210.
John
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:28:25 +0100, Matt Kelch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The SMC-F
The SMC-F 70-210 is what I was thinking of. I take it its pretty heavy
and I'd be better off with the DA 50-200mm?
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:50:38 +0100, Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> AFAIK the DA 50-200 is the only 50-200 from Pentax.
>> You could look at the SMC-F 70-210 b
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:50:38 +0100, Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> AFAIK the DA 50-200 is the only 50-200 from Pentax.
> You could look at the SMC-F 70-210 but it really is a tank ^^
A damn fine tank.
John
> 2006/9/21, Matt Kelch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Well, I managed to nab two of
AFAIK the DA 50-200 is the only 50-200 from Pentax.
You could look at the SMC-F 70-210 but it really is a tank ^^
2006/9/21, Matt Kelch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, I managed to nab two of the elusive Pentax 70-210 f4 lenses, and
> received one of them today. I was pretty shocked by how much it
>
Well, I managed to nab two of the elusive Pentax 70-210 f4 lenses, and
received one of them today. I was pretty shocked by how much it
weighed. Unfortunately this lens in particular is going to be going
back, it appears to have fungus and the guy described the glass as being
totally clean. I
14 matches
Mail list logo