300mm * F4 M lens on Ebay funny looking thing.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370344954939

Its a funny looking thing. (yeah look whos talking)

Doug

Bojidar D has it covered.

I never thought of it as funny looking?

Mine looks just fine. Bought it new in 1988. Used it less than a dozen times.

Regards

Bojidar concludes with "strange!".
Its a little, functional, shall we say.

Doug

similar shape to my Tamron 300 2.8, yes I'd go along with "funny looking"!

K10D you clearly aren't getting any use out of that M*, obviously must be rubbish, let me take it to the tip for you.......

The comments on the now rather out of date stans photography site link were always very positive about this lens, both in M and A version.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

300 mm f/4.0 M*
Jens Bladt - It's a great lens. . . . The lens itself is . . . excellent (sharpness, contrast).

Texdance - . . .I liked the lens, but it was simply too difficult to focus on fast moving objects . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


300 mm f/4.0 A*
Fred - . . . best lightweight hand-holdable long telephoto there is in all of God's creation.

Bob Walkden - . . . The A* is easily handholdable . . . the quality is staggeringly good.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree with all the comments. It is fantastic on both film and digital.

Cheers,

/Ian

I'd love to own either - no chance though unless I find a rich heiress with a thing about muddy Land Rover-driving photography nuts!

It may be funny looking but I'd not say no to one. It just isn't near the top of my want list at the moment. When my leg money comes through I'll be in the market for a long lens but not sure which one yet.

K.

It's a nice lens and quite compact too.

Tried one once and the main disadvantage I could find was that it does not focus terribly close (I'm thinking around 3 meters as the closest focus but would need to check). I was tempted but decided that I wouldn't end up using it terribly much.

I'm not convinced that at normal print and viewing sizes, the image quality would be much if any better than the 55-300 either, and I'd rather lose speed with the latter in order to gain a lot of convenience.

Finally, prices are sometimes mad. This one is a case in point - I wouldn't pay that for the A*, let alone an M*.

It's a great lens and very compact.
Here's a thread with some pictures I posted a couple of years ago

I'm not sure what you mean about funny looking though
The legendary K200/2.5 has a very similar shape.

R