Why use Pentax?

Started Mar 18, 2013 | Questions thread
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,442
Like?
Re: Why use Pentax?
In reply to Gerry Winterbourne, Mar 21, 2013

Why criticize Pentax for having a 50-135mm f2.8?

I am not criticising Pentax for having it. I am just saying pentax goes out its way to make lenses of unconventional FL to avoid comparison.

You may be saying it but that doesn't make it true.

I am not saying it is a bad thing, i am just saying that is what it is, and it is true.

For FF 35mm film 70-200 is a common zoom range developed over the years because it suits a lot of photographic needs for different filds of view.

Well, I dont see it like that. Beside 70-200 there is also 70-300, 75-300, 100-400 and 80-400, they all seem to be selling OK, 70-200 on a APs-C is just like a lens between 75-300 and 100-400 on FF. Many canikon aps-c users use them and love that FL.

Put it simply, I would much prefer to this one lens solution than a 50-135 + a 200mm prime for both the convenience and the cost saving.

The 43/1.9 was designed to have the same FL as the image circle of FF 35mm lenses, making it - by a common definition of the term - the only true "normal" lens. Again, this was designed for the benefit of users.

43mm on apsc is like 65mm on FF, It is indeed a weird FL, I have never seen a 65mm prime on FF. for 50mm effective FOV most aps-c users use 30mm or 35mm lens, 35mm lenses are plenty and sigma makes a 30mm DX lens. So by making a 43mm, Pentax is indeed go out its way to make it hard to compare.

The FA 31, 43 and 77 are widely regarded as among the very best lenses produced.

I am sorry but this is the first time I heard that they "are widely regarded as among the very best lenses produced". A quick check on photozone shows that 77mm and 43mm both have very weak corner performance and rather bad purple fringing, Canon and nikon 85 f1.8G both beat 77 in performance and price. Nikon's 50 F1.8G would both beat 43mm in performance and price (no comparable canon in that price/speed class).

31mm is pretty good but at 1100 USD it is very expensive for a F1.8. Canon 35mm F2 probably beats it in performance and price, Nikon has a 35 F1.8G that cost about 1/5 the price although not exactly a star performer. both canon and nikon offer a high end 35 F1.4 which the pentax just cannot compare.

This is not taking into accounr there is now a supereme sigma 899 USD 35 F1.4.

If Pentax designed them of unconventional FL to avoid comparison it was to save other makers embarrassment, not because Pentax was afraid of being compared.

I once heard a Russian say exactly that about the quality of Lada compared to Japanese cars. Cute.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
BobNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow