2010/9/6 P. J. Alling :
>>>
>>> I'd forgive you for being metric if 80 grams didn't equal a little under
>>> three ounces
I'd cut that short...
>> Mark!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the l
On 9/6/2010 12:50 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 9/5/2010 11:36 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
I'd forgive you for being metric if 80 grams didn't equal a little under
three ounces, ~2.83 ounces to be more exact. Those lenses seemed nice
and light until you applied your conversion factor...
Mark!
Bor
On 9/5/2010 11:36 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
I'd forgive you for being metric if 80 grams didn't equal a little under
three ounces, ~2.83 ounces to be more exact. Those lenses seemed nice
and light until you applied your conversion factor...
Mark!
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml
I'd forgive you for being metric if 80 grams didn't equal a little
under three ounces, ~2.83 ounces to be more exact. Those lenses seemed
nice and light until you applied your conversion factor...
On 9/5/2010 1:12 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
My apologies for being metric but 17-50 weighs 430 g
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Miserere wrote:
> On 3 September 2010 09:53, Sam L wrote:
> One problem some people report is getting bad samples, so make sure
> you purchase from a retailer that allows exchanges.
Yes this is important. I had to return two of the 28-75's.
Dave
--
Documenting
My apologies for being metric but 17-50 weighs 430 g (or so) and 28-75
weighs 510 g (or so). As far as my non-metric knowledge goes, 80 g is
nowhere close to 1/2 pound...
I've Tamron 28-75/2.8 and it seems my copy is outstanding. On Pentax
DSLR it yields angle of view similar to that of 43-110
The Sigma is excellent, I used to own one when I had a K10D.
I'm currently a very happy owner of the Tamron 17-50, but I'm a wide
guy rather than preferring the long end.
-Adam
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:19 AM, eckinator wrote:
> Sam,
> if you don't mind losing an f-stop there is always a 17-70,
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:19 AM, eckinator wrote:
> Sam,
> if you don't mind losing an f-stop there is always a 17-70, either f/4
> by pentax or f/2.8-4.5 by sigma
> cheers
> ecke
I *do* spend lots of time thinking about the 17-70. The pentax is out
because of the higher cost and the possibility
Sam,
if you don't mind losing an f-stop there is always a 17-70, either f/4
by pentax or f/2.8-4.5 by sigma
cheers
ecke
2010/9/3 Sam L :
> Hi all,
>
> I'm fantasizing about acquiring an "upgrade zoom" from the pentax kit
> lens and am currently thinking that the race is between the tamron
> 17-50
On 3 September 2010 09:53, Sam L wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm fantasizing about acquiring an "upgrade zoom" from the pentax kit
> lens and am currently thinking that the race is between the tamron
> 17-50 and the 28-75.
>
> I tend to like the longer end of a lens more than the wider end, so I
> think
Hi all,
I'm fantasizing about acquiring an "upgrade zoom" from the pentax kit
lens and am currently thinking that the race is between the tamron
17-50 and the 28-75.
I tend to like the longer end of a lens more than the wider end, so I
think I would not miss too much the 17-27mm. I'm happier tak
11 matches
Mail list logo
