Originally posted by OniFactor okay, i know i've kind of gone on about this, before.. but.. i'm really getting annoyed, now. is it too much to ask for for a high quality, internal zoom, constant f4 70-200 or 210 or so? maybe i just HAVE been spoiled from my old minolta beercan.. is there ANYTHING similar in Pentax history? here's a shot of it, compared to the 55-200 kit lens..
Which Minolta model is that? Pentax made
a bunch of beercans under various brands. (Note that only the first of those is SMC-coated. The rest are all the same lens under various badges, non-SMC budget models.)
I have the budget version, A 70-200 f/4. It is not so sharp wide open. I've compared it at 200mm and f/4.5, f/5.6, f/8, f/11 to my Tamron LD Di Macro 70-300 f/4-5.6. The Tamron is better hands-down at f/4.5, and a bit at f/5.6.
That being said, I like the beercan design! It is easy to focus manually, auto-meters nicely, and a good conversation piece. Though since you can get a modern AF zoom that has 50% more reach, and is only 1/2 stop slower and much sharper at 200mm, for $130.......
You know what
I think we need more than cheap telephoto zooms?
Cheap telephoto primes. There are all kinds of cheap telephoto zooms... the Tamron 70-300, two models of Sigma 70-300, the Pentax FA 70-300, the upcoming DA 55-300. Is anyone buying them for the short end??? No, I didn't think so. I would happily trade my 70-300 for a 300mm prime, if I could get (a) a little more sharpness, (b) a little less CA, or (c) a little more speed. Take your pick, Tamron, I'll buy it
By the way, why do people prefer internal focus designs??? Just cause it looks funny when your lends extends real far??