Sharpest, cheapest and fastest long zoom?


zealousdp

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 11:05
robbie_d wrote:
zealousdp wrote:
Quote:
zealousdp wrote:
Thanks Thoughton. Having a look now.

Surely it doesn't meet all your qualification criteria and should therefore be excluded?

Yes, but difference is he's already mentioned the Tammy!!

Also, being proactive and suggesting a prime is better than mentioning nothing.

Lastly, read John's comment early on who, mentioned a lens but said it was out of budget - which is just how the post should run. Not with people just saying it can't be done/had.

See, when you posted this:

"What zoom lens (with any ranges between 50 and 250) is the very sharp, very cheap (under 40) and very fast wide open? It has to be all three to qualify."

I thought you actually meant it. Especially by putting the statement (in bold) at the end.

If you want suggestions that don't quite fit, or you are willing to compromise, then why state that it has to be all three.

By saying "no such lens exists" you're query has been answered (funny considering the "can't read" jibe). For all we knew, if we had started suggesting lenses which didn't meet your strict criteria, then it would have been met with a volley of "that's not what I asked for!" (as does happen on occasion).



I stated it HAS to, so people think, or remember clearly rather than just saying the first thing that springs to mind, even if it costed 200.

To be honest, I'm not making jibes, I'm just not one to be walked over by people who want to use me as a sacasm whipping boy - the 10-600mm doesn't even fit the discussion (the range is 50-200!!! Read it again).

Lastly (for now I guess until the next smart remark comes my way and needs putting straight!), a good car dealership would say "sorry, we don't have that...but let me show you this". If you say that they would be all "You can't have that. That doesn't exit. Nowhere will have it" and a little sarcasm/intelligence bashing to go along with it, I don't think that business would last very long selling any cars.

The idea is to give someone what they're looking for, and if, and ONLY if that can't be done YOU offer various combos/compromises/solutions, not the buyer. From all accounts its clear that the person wants the best of all worlds, but they don't understand how these worlds work in conjunction. Are you going to leae them ignorant and send them on their way, or are you going to offer a solution?

zealousdp

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 11:08
Apologies to everyone else. If I was able to PM, I wouldn't be posting this here (new memeber;not allowed).

Robbie, if you want to send me you email then I'm more than happy to keep this up. Mine is zealousdp@hotmail.com Let's see if you want to argue with me, or are you merely trying to show off to everyone how "correct" your answer is.

robbie_d

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 11:10
zealousdp wrote:
robbie_d wrote:
Quote:
robbie_d wrote:
zealousdp wrote:
Thanks Thoughton. Having a look now.

Surely it doesn't meet all your qualification criteria and should therefore be excluded?

Yes, but difference is he's already mentioned the Tammy!!

Also, being proactive and suggesting a prime is better than mentioning nothing.

Lastly, read John's comment early on who, mentioned a lens but said it was out of budget - which is just how the post should run. Not with people just saying it can't be done/had.

See, when you posted this:

"What zoom lens (with any ranges between 50 and 250) is the very sharp, very cheap (under 40) and very fast wide open? It has to be all three to qualify."

I thought you actually meant it. Especially by putting the statement (in bold) at the end.

If you want suggestions that don't quite fit, or you are willing to compromise, then why state that it has to be all three.

By saying "no such lens exists" you're query has been answered (funny considering the "can't read" jibe). For all we knew, if we had started suggesting lenses which didn't meet your strict criteria, then it would have been met with a volley of "that's not what I asked for!" (as does happen on occasion).



I stated it HAS to, so people think, or remember clearly rather than just saying the first thing that springs to mind, even if it costed 200.

To be honest, I'm not making jibes, I'm just not one to be walked over by people who want to use me as a sacasm whipping boy - the 10-600mm doesn't even fit the discussion (the range is 50-200!!! Read it again).

Lastly (for now I guess until the next smart remark comes my way and needs putting straight!), a good car dealership would say "sorry, we don't have that...but let me show you this". If you say that they would be all "You can't have that. That doesn't exit. Nowhere will have it" and a little sarcasm/intelligence bashing to go along with it, I don't think that business would last very long selling any cars.

The idea is to give someone what they're looking for, and if, and ONLY if that can't be done YOU offer various combos/compromises/solutions, not the buyer. From all accounts its clear that the person wants the best of all worlds, but they don't understand how these worlds work in conjunction. Are you going to leae them ignorant and send them on their way, or are you going to offer a solution?



3 points:

1. The sarcasm only came about after provocation, if you're willing to give out insults, expect them back. I should have just caveated it with "no offence intended" though.
2. I might be wrong, but last time I checked a 10-600mm just about covers the range you asked for. I can double check if you like though.
3. Re: point 2, I though you were allowing compromise, not that additional focal range is really a compromise. Why so hard and fast with the criteria all of a sudden?
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.

robbie_d

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 11:23
PM sent.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.

zealousdp

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 11:32
What is your problem??????????????????????????????

I should have know from the time you had a Tropical Thunder edited signature!

Either way, like I said. There is no way you're going to beat me with that sarcasm/insult stick you weild so fiercely.

NO-ONE INSULTED YOU!!!

I said, leaving "Can't be done" type post is not helpful, don't take offence, please don't do it. Why barage me with random jibes?

I can tell you're in it to win it (although you've lossed severaltimes over) because you post like a debater - ie, never answering my comments, but always making new ones or trying to re-enforce your previous.

Please, show some valour and give up.

FYI - I never mention focal length as a compromise, also, the 10-600mm (foolish edition) may cover the range, but, its not what I asked for.

Again, just give it up!

techno-terminator

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 11:34
Guys - walk away from it please
let the education continue

proud owner of a couple of cameras and a few bits and bobs

robbie_d

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 11:37
I sent a PM, I thought you didn't want to discuss this on the board. I was led to believe that is just "showing off".
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.

Glover

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 11:42
its my day off today, i woke up a bit groggy after a lie in, this thread perked me right up
Pentax K-5
DA 18-55mm AL WR DAL 50-200mm Tamron 70-300mm, Auto Chinon 28mm 2.8. sigma 30mm 1.4 DC
Metz 48 af-1
Flickr

aliengrove

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 12:04
Handbags at dawn?
Flurble

My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Facebook

zealousdp

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 12:07
Glover wrote:
its my day off today, i woke up a bit groggy after a lie in, this thread perked me right up

aliengrove wrote:
Handbags at dawn?

At last I finally have a smile on instead of frowning for "X" minutes.

Back to the lenses...if anyone is still interested, that is.

Glover

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 12:22
Not wanting to get involved in the bitch slapping, i want to add my comment

to be honest i do feel robbie has a point in his defence, you did say it has to be very sharp very cheap (under 40) and very fast wide open, and has to be all 3 to qaulify, this does read to me that thats the criteria and anything else will not do, so when robbie says it does not exist i think he was right in saying so.

However.

You later said
I stated it HAS to, so people think, or remember clearly rather than just saying the first thing that springs to mind, even if it costed 200, which in a way contradicts what you said originally.

I think everyone who reads this post now knows not to just say the first thing that pops into mind so how about.........

Put the slanging match aside, shake and make up and revise what your requirments are.

EG: I'm after a lens covering approx 50-250mm which is as fast as poss wide open, as sharp as can be for as cheap as poss, i'd like to spend around 40 but if it has to be more so be it, any suggestions greatly appritiated.
Pentax K-5
DA 18-55mm AL WR DAL 50-200mm Tamron 70-300mm, Auto Chinon 28mm 2.8. sigma 30mm 1.4 DC
Metz 48 af-1
Flickr
Last Edited by Glover on 24/03/2010 - 12:25

Glover

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 12:27
And on keeping on topic.

I do like the tamron 70-300 too, good lens for under 100 i paid 90 brand new.
The 50-200mm kit lens is also a pretty good lens to be honest, can be picked up relitively cheap.
Pentax K-5
DA 18-55mm AL WR DAL 50-200mm Tamron 70-300mm, Auto Chinon 28mm 2.8. sigma 30mm 1.4 DC
Metz 48 af-1
Flickr

robbie_d

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 12:28
The WR version of the 55-200 was available for 109 recently. I think it was at SRS.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.

Glover

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 12:34
i kept toying with the idea of upgrading mine to the wr lenses but no point really my cameras are not weather sealed so defeats the object, i think the optics are the same but you have the auto focus override on the wr lens to fine tune manually.
Pentax K-5
DA 18-55mm AL WR DAL 50-200mm Tamron 70-300mm, Auto Chinon 28mm 2.8. sigma 30mm 1.4 DC
Metz 48 af-1
Flickr

robbie_d

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 12:45
Glover wrote:
i kept toying with the idea of upgrading mine to the wr lenses but no point really my cameras are not weather sealed so defeats the object, i think the optics are the same but you have the auto focus override on the wr lens to fine tune manually.

Was thinking of doing the same and came to the same conclusion.

Maybe when I have a K-7 (or whatever replaces it)...
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.