Hello
The 55-300mm is a surprisingly good lens considering the very low cost.
Only outpassed by the 60-250mm by quite small differences.
Look at:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=86896645@N00&q=55-300
Regards
Jens
Den 11-01-2015 kl. 20:50 skrev Eric Weir:
A message I attempted to send whe
Am 15.02.15 um 06:41 schrieb Jens Bladt:
The 55-300mm is a surprisingly good lens considering the very low cost.
+1
I've bought mine on the way to our xmas holidays, took a load of photos
with it, and I'm perfectly happy.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Cologne, Germany
Blog : http:
Ralf R Radermacher wrote:
>Am 15.02.15 um 06:41 schrieb Jens Bladt:
>
>> The 55-300mm is a surprisingly good lens considering the very low cost.
>
>+1
>
>I've bought mine on the way to our xmas holidays, took a load of photos
>with it, and I'm perfectly happy.
And the even-less-expensive DA-L 55
Am 15.02.15 um 16:23 schrieb Mark Roberts:
And the even-less-expensive DA-L 55-300 is the same lens optically.
Do note the missing "WR".
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Cologne, Germany
Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com
Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf
Web
Ralf R Radermacher wrote:
>Am 15.02.15 um 16:23 schrieb Mark Roberts:
>
>> And the even-less-expensive DA-L 55-300 is the same lens optically.
>
>Do note the missing "WR".
The missing "WR" probably accounts for the missing two-hundred-or-so
dollars in the price.
--
Mark Roberts - Photography
On 2/15/2015 12:22 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Ralf R Radermacher wrote:
Am 15.02.15 um 16:23 schrieb Mark Roberts:
And the even-less-expensive DA-L 55-300 is the same lens optically.
Do note the missing "WR".
The missing "WR" probably accounts for the missing two-hundred-or-so
dollars in the p
P.J. Alling wrote:
>On 2/15/2015 12:22 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> Ralf R Radermacher wrote:
>>
>>> Am 15.02.15 um 16:23 schrieb Mark Roberts:
>>>
And the even-less-expensive DA-L 55-300 is the same lens optically.
>>> Do note the missing "WR".
>> The missing "WR" probably accounts for the mis
On 15 Feb 2015, at 17:38, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> P.J. Alling wrote:
>
>>> On 2/15/2015 12:22 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>> Ralf R Radermacher wrote:
>>>
> Am 15.02.15 um 16:23 schrieb Mark Roberts:
>
> And the even-less-expensive DA-L 55-300 is the same lens optically.
Do note
Quoting "P.J. Alling" :
On 2/15/2015 12:22 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Ralf R Radermacher wrote:
Am 15.02.15 um 16:23 schrieb Mark Roberts:
And the even-less-expensive DA-L 55-300 is the same lens optically.
Do note the missing "WR".
The missing "WR" probably accounts for the missing two-hund
On 15/02/2015 2:44 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
Quoting "P.J. Alling" :
On 2/15/2015 12:22 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Ralf R Radermacher wrote:
Am 15.02.15 um 16:23 schrieb Mark Roberts:
And the even-less-expensive DA-L 55-300 is the same lens optically.
Do note the missing "WR".
The missing "W
Quoting Bill :
On 15/02/2015 2:44 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
My 55-300 (non WR) has a metal lens mount.
How many versions are there of that lens?
42
Thanks.
We haven't had a '42' answer in a while...
--
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Au
On 2/15/2015 3:44 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
Quoting "P.J. Alling" :
On 2/15/2015 12:22 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Ralf R Radermacher wrote:
Am 15.02.15 um 16:23 schrieb Mark Roberts:
And the even-less-expensive DA-L 55-300 is the same lens optically.
Do note the missing "WR".
The missing "WR
On 2/15/2015 3:52 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
Quoting Bill :
On 15/02/2015 2:44 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
My 55-300 (non WR) has a metal lens mount.
How many versions are there of that lens?
42
Thanks.
We haven't had a '42' answer in a while...
Yes the answer to what's 6x7,,,
--
I d
Am 15.02.15 um 23:55 schrieb P.J. Alling:
> I don't think that there's an HD
version yet, but that's next and there will then be 4 versions...
There is and I have it.
Now, if only Adobe would take note of this.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Cologne, Germany
Blog : http://the-real-fo
I have an HD version as well. I believe that they improved the optical
formula or made some tweaks. Its mostly the same lens, but it does
seem to outperform the older versions.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote:
> Am 15.02.15 um 23:55 schrieb P.J. Alling:
>
>> I don't thin
Am 16.02.15 um 00:24 schrieb Zos Xavius:
I have an HD version as well. I believe that they improved the optical
formula or made some tweaks. Its mostly the same lens, but it does
seem to outperform the older versions.
Here's a detailed comparison of the HD and non-HD versions:
http://www.penta
Ralf R Radermacher wrote:
Am 16.02.15 um 00:24 schrieb Zos Xavius:
I have an HD version as well. I believe that they improved the optical
formula or made some tweaks. Its mostly the same lens, but it does
seem to outperform the older versions.
Here's a detailed comparison of the HD and non-H
17 matches
Mail list logo
