[cpopham]

Hahaha I have the exact same issue (and noticed the same thing with respect to giant swathes of advertising for Nikon). In fact, there's even more advertising from that one company (T A McAlister) because they're also the Lowepro distributor...

I'll be honest, I wasn't particularly impressed with the quality of the content in that magazine, but I'm not really sure it's actually pitched at people who already have SLRs.

By the way, regarding your search for a budget 300mm lens, there is an F 100-300 on TM at the moment. Was sitting on $20 last time I looked.

[Class A]

noticed the same thing with respect to giant swathes of advertising for Nikon

Impressive, n'est-ce pas?

I'll be honest, I wasn't particularly impressed with the quality of the content in that magazine, but I'm not really sure it's actually pitched at people who already have SLRs.

I haven't checked much of the rest of the content yet but I think you are right. The fact that it is probably pitched at potential entry market buyers makes it worse that they made such a bad job of an informative comparison. For some Nikon is the best choice, for some it is Pentax or some other brand, but the article doesn't allow you to make an informed choice.

By the way, regarding your search for a budget 300mm lens, there is an F 100-300 on TM at the moment.

Thanks a lot for the heads up. I found it. It is the model that doesn't get high praise from Pentax aficionados.

P.S.: I'll have to catch up with some of the postings here. Didn't have a lot of time recently.

[Arpe]

I have a subscription to D-Photo, it's cheap compared to others, but I don't think I'll renew it. Yes it's fairly lightweight, the reviews are totally useless. But I like it to look at the pictures (of course some other magazines I look at to read the articles, honest).

I too noticed all the Nikon ads.

Please send that letter to their editor.

[cpopham]

It is the model that doesn't get high praise from Pentax aficionados.

Yeah, I noticed that - on the other hand, you might get it cheap. Or maybe not, some stuff seems to go for rather insane prices here.

of course some other magazines I look at to read the articles, honest.

I think I understand what you mean.

[mingdie]

There is no unbiased magazine in this country. The publishers make the money out of advertising and whoever pays most get the best deal.

I have used a lot of different magazines during the years and this is how it works. I decide to advertise in a magazine and make a deal with the rep. It may be that in conjunction with the normal ads, you write an editorial about the company or a product. It is of course made to look like a reporter have written the piece but I will do it myself.

Another way is to do it together with an article about products or the use of products. Instead of having your products name in the article you make sure all the advantages your product have is mentioned. Even better is to make sure the photos used to illustrate how to fit, use or service a product is photos of your own brand.

Advertising by stealth.

[Class A]

I have a subscription to D-Photo, it's cheap compared to others, but I don't think I'll renew it.

You should write the editor that this review has been the last straw and you are not renewing your subscription.

But I like it to look at the pictures (of course some other magazines I look at to read the articles, honest).

Who doesn't like good pictures and articles.

Guys, tell me this doesn't turn you on.

Please send that letter to their editor.

I did, via email. Don't think this letter will get me into the draw for the DELL printer.

[Class A]

on the other hand, you might get it cheap.

If I can get it cheap, I'd like to try out how "not so swell" from the Pentax aficionados compares to the "soft at 250mm" people attribute to the Tamron 18-250mm. The 100-300mm may actually be not a total dog in comparison but then I'm not so sure. I reckon that the modern zooms are much better than the reputation they have inherited from their ancestors.

[Class A]

The publishers make the money out of advertising and whoever pays most get the best deal.

I didn't read this. This is shocking.

It is of course made to look like a reporter have written the piece but I will do it myself.

But this would be jerking readers around. Should it not be regarded as illegal to get people's money in the name of objectivity but really be the piper playing the tune some manufacturer paid?

[Arpe]

You should write the editor that this review has been the last straw and you are not renewing your subscription.
My sub still has a year to run, so not yet

Guys, tell me this doesn't turn you on.
Oooh, extended as well!

I did, via email. Don't think this letter will get me into the draw for the DELL printer.
Ha! No I doubt it

..........

[cpopham]

If I can get it cheap

I was considering trying the same thing - it seems like every time I want a lens longer than 50mm, my 50-200 is either:
a) too slow
b) too short

So something longer than 200mm might be nice....from the comments on the auction it sounds like there are several watchers though, so it's probably going to be a last minute bidding war....

[Class A]

it seems like every time I want a lens longer than 50mm, my 50-200 is either:
a) too slow
b) too short

f/5.6 isn't too bad for 200mm, I guess. The trouble is that fast telephotos get expensive and heavy very quickly.

And 300mm isn't a gigantic difference to 200mm. There is certainly not a lot of difference between 200 and 250 and Arpe reckons nothing dramatic happens when going to 300.

So something longer than 200mm might be nice....from the comments on the auction it sounds like there are several watchers though, so it's probably going to be a last minute bidding war....

I saw the 100-300mm a couple of times on TM:
Pentax 100-300mm zoom for sale - TradeMe.co.nz - New Zealand
Pentax 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Lens for sale - TradeMe.co.nz - New Zealand
The latter didn't go and the seller wanted $200 for it. No idea whether it is worth that but I wouldn't spend that kind of money for a lens with that reputation. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Class A]

I'm questioning whether I want anything faster than f2.8, because I've found there's a lot to be said for f2.8, with the application of a little bit of flash as the light dims

Yes, with the exception of purposefully "thin DOF" shots (as I've alluded to above) I fully agree with you. If you need speed, a faster lens isn't going to help much as the DOF becomes basically useless. One really needs higher ISO and/or flash.

So, about that travelling 50mm lens, would any of you guys be interested if we got it to visit?

I'm not sure. If it made it here, I might be tempted but probably would rather spend the postage towards an own copy. Some here seem to have that lens model; wouldn't be much of a point to use the one that made it round the world instead, would there? Less crazy then posting an SD card round the world (instead of just posting to a website) but not too far away from it.

It's a bit of a shame we don't have anyone in the south island, really

I'll make a trip to the SI later in December. I'm really looking forward to doing that. Will be my first time. Probably no time to make it to the sounds but still, should be nice.

I strongly recommend never seeing, holding, and especially not trying any of the DA* lenses. Not given the crazy prices we have to pay for them

Now you wetted our appetite.
The DA* 50-135 shots on this forum are rather impressive. Oh well, as long as I'm not earning anything from this hobby (i.e.,. in all likelihood forever ) this will probably remain a dream.

Hey Arpe, your last posting confuses the hell out of the forum (or its is my browser, don't know). Anyhow, I realise that you cannot/do not want to get out of your current subscription. Still, you could tell the editor that this "review" has convinced you that you shouldn't renew it.

One irate letter and one subscribing customer jumping ship won't turn around D-Photo's approach to "reviews" but there is no other way then voting with your feet and telling others, is there?

[cpopham]

f/5.6 isn't too bad for 200mm, I guess. The trouble is that fast telephotos get expensive and heavy very quickly.

Ah, yes, you're right - I should have been a little more specific with my earlier post. What I meant is that I often find it too slow when I want to use it as a short tele, and then not long enough when I want something really long.

The latter didn't go and the seller wanted $200 for it. No idea whether it is worth that but I wouldn't spend that kind of money for a lens with that reputation.

I wouldn't spend $200 on a lens just as an experiment either. I'd rather put that towards buying the exact lens I'd really like.

One really needs higher ISO and/or flash.

Indeed, or even a little bit of both!

wouldn't be much of a point to use the one that made it round the world instead, would there?

Well, that's kind of the point I think. To be part of an 'adventure' (although the lens will be having the adventure...)

I'll make a trip to the SI later in December. I'm really looking forward to doing that. Will be my first time. Probably no time to make it to the sounds but still, should be nice.

It's an absolutely amazing place, and quite surprising how different it looks to the NI. Well worth many trips! (which is not to say there aren't also many places worth seeing in the North Island too!) Myself, I need to get back to the Bay of Islands again.

The DA* 50-135 shots on this forum are rather impressive. Oh well, as long as I'm not earning anything from this hobby (i.e.,. in all likelihood forever ) this will probably remain a dream.

For a digital lens, the MF action on them is very nice indeed. I think the 50-135 is probably better value for money than the 16-50 also, but my most used focal lengths tend to be shorter, so it made more sense.

My rationalisation stragegy was to set myself a "shiny stuff" budget, which I put into a separate savings account out of my salary every month - and then whatever I spend that on doesn't matter, it's my "money to waste".

[Class A]

I think the 50-135 is probably better value for money than the 16-50 also, but my most used focal lengths tend to be shorter, so it made more sense.

If I had to chose, I would go for the 16-50 as well. It is roughly centred around the APS-C normal of 28mm and the implied perspective change in that range is a lot more drastic than with a 50-135 which is essentially (I'm exaggerating a bit) something between a short and a not so short tele. 16 must be nice for some type of shots.

I think my lens line up will shortly be more complete than I have ever imagined (thought I wouldn't be concerned with sensor cleaning because I would only leave the one lens on the camera), but there will be one gap that I'd like to fill some day in the future: A wide angle lens, probably a zoom for the flexibility. Something like a 10-20 or 12-24. These are just too effective to create certain effects not to have them in the bag.

My rationalisation stragegy was to set myself a "shiny stuff" budget, which I put into a separate savings account out of my salary every month - and then whatever I spend that on doesn't matter, it's my "money to waste".

Good strategy. But it appears there was no need to get it approved by the ministry of family affairs, aka, one's better half.

[cpopham]

If I had to chose, I would go for the 16-50 as well. It is roughly centred around the APS-C normal of 28mm and the implied perspective change in that range is a lot more drastic than with a 50-135 which is essentially (I'm exaggerating a bit) something between a short and a not so short tele. 16 must be nice for some type of shots.

There's certainly nothing wrong with the 16-50 as far as I can see, and I'm pretty sure I have a good one. 16 is... definitely the weakest part of the lens. Distortion is pretty heavy, and the corners are pretty bad wide open there. Having said that, it's not *too* bad since for most wide angle uses you'd be wanting to stop down a lot.

A wide angle lens, probably a zoom for the flexibility. Something like a 10-20 or 12-24. These are just too effective to create certain effects not to have them in the bag.

The 12-24 seems to be generally regarded as being excellent, too...

Good strategy. But it appears there was no need to get it approved by the ministry of family affairs, aka, one's better half.

Hah, no, there wasn't - one of the advantages of being in your mid 20's. What you could suggest is that you each have a personal shiny things budget...