February 23, 2001 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: Thoughts about the FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL (IF) and other things
>At 05:28 AM 2/23/01 -0800, you wrote:
>>Roland Mabo:
>>"What happened to the Tamron collaboration?
>>28-200, 28-105, 100-300 - then nothing. (btw, isn't
>&g
"Pål Jensen"
> > Btw - Pentax Scandinavia says that they
> > expect a summer release for the MZ-S,
> > they have "no idea" about the price.
Pentax USA is saying the same thing if you contact them. If you
know a local distributor, you'll get a different story.
> They are probably lying. A week a
At 05:28 AM 2/23/01 -0800, you wrote:
>Roland Mabo:
>"What happened to the Tamron collaboration?
>28-200, 28-105, 100-300 - then nothing. (btw, isn't
>the FA28-80 f/3.5-5.6 the same as
>Tamron's 28-80 f/3.5-5.6?)."
>-
>
I think the next Tamron for us Pentax fo
Roland Mabo:
"What happened to the Tamron collaboration?
28-200, 28-105, 100-300 - then nothing. (btw, isn't
the FA28-80 f/3.5-5.6 the same as
Tamron's 28-80 f/3.5-5.6?)."
-
No. A quick comparison of the specifications shows
that the Pentax and Tamron 28-80s
Roland wrote:
> Btw - Pentax Scandinavia says that they expect a summer release for the MZ-S, they
>have "no idea" about the price.
They are probably lying. A week ago I received price lists and information about the
MZ-S in the mail from the Pentax distributor. The price was clearly stated:
Roland wrote:
> What happened to the Tamron collaboration?
> 28-200, 28-105, 100-300 - then nothing. (btw, isn't the FA28-80 f/3.5-5.6 the same
>as Tamron's 28-80 f/3.5-5.6?).
Maybe the 28-105 rebadge was just a patch up job filling the hole temporarily between
the old 28-105 and the new one.
I wonder if the new FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL (IF) is meant to replace the old 28-105
f/4-5.6, while Pentax keeps the 28-105 f/4-5.6 (IF) Silver as a low cost alternative.
This would be quite logical, and may mean that the optical quality of the new 28-105
is far better than the, quite average, op
7 matches
Mail list logo
