K-5 DR, E-5 Lenses

[dark goob]

So we keep seeing all this talk about the Pentax K-5's dynamic range. Can I also add that it's a wonderfully lightweight camera, has a whisper-quiet shutter, and feels solid in the hand? OK.

Honestly I almost got a K20D instead of the E-3 originally.

But here's the thing. What does Pentax have for glass? Really?

Am I missing something here?

What Pentax lens compares at all to the 50-200 SWD? I'd like to mention that NOBODY has a lens that compares favorably to the 50-200 SWD when it comes to an APS-C, weatherproof telephoto lens for with a tripod shoe that AFs with a doubler on it, is relatively light, and gives 2.8-3.5 type brightness.

Also I've tried the 16-50 2.8 and honestly, I'm sorry but it does not hold a candle to the 12-60mm SWD. I mean what good is dynamic range if your lens sucks? I'm just saying. And look, I know Olympus' lenses are not perfect, but I'll soon be renting a 90-250 and taking it up to the mountain and out to the woods. I'm not sure what Pentax might have that is in that realm.

-=DG=-

 

[dark goob]

I'd like to mention that NOBODY has a lens that compares favorably to the 50-200 SWD when it comes to an APS-C, weatherproof telephoto lens for with a tripod shoe that AFs with a doubler on it, is relatively light, and gives 2.8-3.5 type brightness.

Sorry for the grammar error here. Typo.

What I am getting at is that the 50-200 SWD is full-frame on a Four Thirds camera and I have so far not found anything that is full-frame on an APS-C camera that remotely compares with it. The closest thing from Canikon is the 70-200 f/2.8 type lens but really, that is more a comparison to the Olympus 35-100 f/2.0.

 

[Big Ga]

Am I missing something here?

Yes.

 

[Ergo607]

So we keep seeing all this talk about the Pentax K-5's dynamic range. Can I also add that it's a wonderfully lightweight camera, has a whisper-quiet shutter, and feels solid in the hand? OK.

Honestly I almost got a K20D instead of the E-3 originally.

But here's the thing. What does Pentax have for glass? Really?

Am I missing something here?

What Pentax lens compares at all to the 50-200 SWD? I'd like to mention that NOBODY has a lens that compares favorably to the 50-200 SWD when it comes to an APS-C, weatherproof telephoto lens for with a tripod shoe that AFs with a doubler on it, is relatively light, and gives 2.8-3.5 type brightness.

Also I've tried the 16-50 2.8 and honestly, I'm sorry but it does not hold a candle to the 12-60mm SWD. I mean what good is dynamic range if your lens sucks? I'm just saying. And look, I know Olympus' lenses are not perfect, but I'll soon be renting a 90-250 and taking it up to the mountain and out to the woods. I'm not sure what Pentax might have that is in that realm.

-=DG=-

http://www.pentax.co.uk/en/group/14/product/21750/body/overview/Photo_Lenses.html

Has the same reach, and at f/4 it's no slough neither... Now, I have never tried it myself, but I wouldn't discount it for its' (optical and mechanical) quality...

--
Cheers,
Marc

http://www.digifotofreak.nl

 

[Cax]

Pentax is the only other manufacturer that has something like the 50-200: The 60-250/4

It is:

• A modern design
• Designed for the sensor size
• Moderately priced
• Ruggedly built
• No effort or quality wasted on optical stabilization

I don't think the optical quality is too far off either.

 

[TheEye]

What does Pentax have for glass? Really?

--

Pentax has a number of to me interesting prime lenses. In addition, third party manufacturers offer a variety of prime and zoom lenses for Pentax.

http://photography-by-thomas.blogspot.com/

 

[Clark666]

The latest K-5 criticism is that it doesn't focus well under artificial lights: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=37284828

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/75673106@N00/

 

[Franka T.L.]

Oh yes, there is no Pentax equivalent of the ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5, but then there is no 4/3 equivalent of the Pentax DA and FA limited, nor their vast array o old MF lens ( not designed for digital for sure but work just fine for most of the better quality ones ). Nor is there a 4/3 version of the Canon's TS-E , nor Sony/Minolta's STF, nor Leica's 21 & 24 f/1.4, or even simple as Nikon's good old 35/2.0 ( on ff )

The statement go both ways, where 4/3 had solution, there is more to others too. If you need and adorn the ZD 50-200, then you just had to live with the limit of the 4/3 sensor's DR vs others ( current ones ).

One of the reason why 4/3 do not gather that more market is in fact the lack of more lens that cater. For a start, no everyone like those lens as they are , no matter how good they come to be. What suites , just suites, what don't, just don't.

--

• Franka -

 

[Larry MacKinnon]

Well, you are missing at least one thing, that is the greater ability to use glass from other manufacturers. The Sigma 17-50 looks quite nice and the Tamron 17-50 non-VC is also a nice lens. These selections might not have the build that is HG or SHG glass but both lenses are good. And as mentioned above, the Pentax 60-250 looks quite good. So, all told, one does have options if they own a Pentax, for both zoom and prime lenses.

But here's the thing. What does Pentax have for glass? Really?

Am I missing something here?

 

[msusic]

When the "proud" owners show how good their K5/D7k is when they deliberately underexpose ISO100 shot and then lift shadow to get a mushy green tinted but low-noise photo.

Colors, clarity, tonality... who cares as long as you can apply +4 EV on an underexposed shot.

So funny.
--
Cheers,
Marin

 

[Jeff Tokayer]

Oh yes, there is no Pentax equivalent of the ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5, but then there is no 4/3 equivalent of the Pentax DA and FA limited, nor their vast array o old MF lens ( not designed for digital for sure but work just fine for most of the better quality ones ). Nor is there a 4/3 version of the Canon's TS-E , nor Sony/Minolta's STF, nor Leica's 21 & 24 f/1.4, or even simple as Nikon's good old 35/2.0 ( on ff )

I just compared reviews for the ZD50/2 to the Pentax 77 and 70 Limited at lenstip.com.
Sorry to say it, but the 50 beats them both.
I'll stay with my Zuikos.

Jeff.

 

[nick_webster]

There is no option for a TC as mentioned in the OP,

Nick

 

[nick_webster]

Not quite the 4x zoom of the Oly but otherwise it meets your criteria. I've used one on a Nikon in the rain for several hours and it is optically excellent. Not used a TC with it but apparently works well with either the 1.4 or 2x TCs. Discontinued now and rather rare as it never sold well for some reasons that elude me as I've not heard a bad thing about it - even seems to have beaten Sigma's usual QC issues. This is the lens I always hoped that Sigma would port to 4/3s mount and I think it would have sold quite well as it would have been the cheapish 300 f4 that many people want with the bonus of having a lot of other focal lengths built in

I looked hard at Pentax when I was considering either an E-3 or system swap and heard far too many complaints about the poor QC problems with the 16-50. I believe the 50-135 is very good though.

Pentax strengths aren't really in the telephoto area though, if you need that then you'd do better with one of Canon and Nikon's APC bodies, which offer a much bigger range of tele lenses while still offering better DR than Oly. Certainly in the case of Nikon you'll get much better C-AF as well. It's all swings and roundabouts, pick the compromise that suits you best,

Nick

 

[Rriley]

Not quite the 4x zoom of the Oly but otherwise it meets your criteria. I've used one on a Nikon in the rain for several hours and it is optically excellent. Not used a TC with it but apparently works well with either the 1.4 or 2x TCs. Discontinued now and rather rare as it never sold well for some reasons that elude me as I've not heard a bad thing about it - even seems to have beaten Sigma's usual QC issues. This is the lens I always hoped that Sigma would port to 4/3s mount and I think it would have sold quite well as it would have been the cheapish 300 f4 that many people want with the bonus of having a lot of other focal lengths built in

i hear what you say about nikon D300 and TC, i thought i read they couldnt AF with stacks at f/8? (ref Thom Hogan), did i misread something or ? .....

I looked hard at Pentax when I was considering either an E-3 or system swap and heard far too many complaints about the poor QC problems with the 16-50. I believe the 50-135 is very good though.

Pentax strengths aren't really in the telephoto area though, if you need that then you'd do better with one of Canon and Nikon's APC bodies, which offer a much bigger range of tele lenses while still offering better DR than Oly. Certainly in the case of Nikon you'll get much better C-AF as well. It's all swings and roundabouts, pick the compromise that suits you best,

Nick

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

 

[Ergo607]

Oh yes, there is no Pentax equivalent of the ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5, but then there is no 4/3 equivalent of the Pentax DA and FA limited, nor their vast array o old MF lens ( not designed for digital for sure but work just fine for most of the better quality ones ). Nor is there a 4/3 version of the Canon's TS-E , nor Sony/Minolta's STF, nor Leica's 21 & 24 f/1.4, or even simple as Nikon's good old 35/2.0 ( on ff )

I just compared reviews for the ZD50/2 to the Pentax 77 and 70 Limited at lenstip.com.
Sorry to say it, but the 50 beats them both.
I'll stay with my Zuikos.

Having had both the 77 and 70 ltd's (and now the ZD 50), I am sorry to say that you are wrong. Both have jaw dropping resolution, no matter what f/ you put it on. Don't get me wrong, the ZD 50 is an excellent lens, but both the limiteds (especially the 77) is well regarded among Pentaxians and with justification. As for build quality, the limiteds beat the ZD 50 fairly and squarely...

Just goes to show that a review only has so much value...

Jeff.

--
Cheers,
Marc

http://www.digifotofreak.nl

 

[msusic]

Looking at various reviews on the internet, those 2 LTDs are not that special at all, certainly not for the price and optically 50mm macro is better than 77mm while costing 2-2.5x less money and being a macro lens which makes it more useful too.

If I'm not mistaken, it doesn't have weather sealing either.

Certainly two interesting lenses for Pentax users, but for the price of those two, I'd rather get 14-35mm or 35-100mm thank you very much, or just 50mm macro if I was on a budget.

Oh yes, there is no Pentax equivalent of the ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5, but then there is no 4/3 equivalent of the Pentax DA and FA limited, nor their vast array o old MF lens ( not designed for digital for sure but work just fine for most of the better quality ones ). Nor is there a 4/3 version of the Canon's TS-E , nor Sony/Minolta's STF, nor Leica's 21 & 24 f/1.4, or even simple as Nikon's good old 35/2.0 ( on ff )

I just compared reviews for the ZD50/2 to the Pentax 77 and 70 Limited at lenstip.com.
Sorry to say it, but the 50 beats them both.
I'll stay with my Zuikos.

Having had both the 77 and 70 ltd's (and now the ZD 50), I am sorry to say that you are wrong. Both have jaw dropping resolution, no matter what f/ you put it on. Don't get me wrong, the ZD 50 is an excellent lens, but both the limiteds (especially the 77) is well regarded among Pentaxians and with justification. As for build quality, the limiteds beat the ZD 50 fairly and squarely...

Just goes to show that a review only has so much value...

Jeff.

--
Cheers,
Marc

http://www.digifotofreak.nl

--
Cheers,
Marin

 

[nick_webster]

I never tried the lens with a TC. I think that the Nikon bodies will focus with f8 equivalents but it will be slower and/or less accurate than normal. Just a guess though and if you need 600mm and faster than f8 then Nikon do this ...









This is the MF version and so won't AF even on an E-3

Nick

 

[msusic]

Haha, nice combo, would love to see photos taken with it.
--
Cheers,
Marin

 

[WGArts2]

Oh yes, there is no Pentax equivalent of the ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5, but then there is no 4/3 equivalent of the Pentax ... vast array of old MF lens ( not designed for digital for sure but work just fine for most of the better quality ones ).

Be serious. The legacy OM glass is comparable to any other collection out there. And legacy glass has serious corner sharpness issues on digital which will be exacerbated by the larger Pentax sensor.

Nor is there a 4/3 version of the Canon's TS-E ,

This is true. Tilt/Shift might be nice. But then the 4:3 system has better DOF to begin with. Shift is another story. (Course this is not Petax is it?)

nor Sony/Minolta's STF, nor Leica's 21 & 24 f/1.4,

Simple adapter is all u need. See thread 'E-5 haters'. (Course this is not Petax is it?)

or even simple as Nikon's good old 35/2.0 ( on ff )

This is a good lens. But then there is the Zuiko 14-35 F/2.0 which has this covered and then some, eh? (Course this is not Petax is it?)

 

[Ergo607]

Looking at various reviews on the internet, those 2 LTDs are not that special at all, certainly not for the price and optically 50mm macro is better than 77mm while costing 2-2.5x less money and being a macro lens which makes it more useful too.

You have used these two lenses, did you? You speak out of own experience, don't you? As for the price, where the hell did you get the 2-2,5x more expensive? Did you ever look at the price...?

If I'm not mistaken, it doesn't have weather sealing either.

True, but the OM lenses weren't weather sealed either, didn't stop Olympus to make the OM-4 and OM-3 to be weather sealed. Now, why would that be?

Certainly two interesting lenses for Pentax users, but for the price of those two, I'd rather get 14-35mm or 35-100mm thank you very much, or just 50mm macro if I was on a budget.

Again, you don't have any clue about the price. I suggest you get your figures right before you speak...

Oh yes, there is no Pentax equivalent of the ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5, but then there is no 4/3 equivalent of the Pentax DA and FA limited, nor their vast array o old MF lens ( not designed for digital for sure but work just fine for most of the better quality ones ). Nor is there a 4/3 version of the Canon's TS-E , nor Sony/Minolta's STF, nor Leica's 21 & 24 f/1.4, or even simple as Nikon's good old 35/2.0 ( on ff )

I just compared reviews for the ZD50/2 to the Pentax 77 and 70 Limited at lenstip.com.
Sorry to say it, but the 50 beats them both.
I'll stay with my Zuikos.

Having had both the 77 and 70 ltd's (and now the ZD 50), I am sorry to say that you are wrong. Both have jaw dropping resolution, no matter what f/ you put it on. Don't get me wrong, the ZD 50 is an excellent lens, but both the limiteds (especially the 77) is well regarded among Pentaxians and with justification. As for build quality, the limiteds beat the ZD 50 fairly and squarely...

Just goes to show that a review only has so much value...

Jeff.

--
Cheers,
Marc

http://www.digifotofreak.nl

--
Cheers,
Marin

--
Cheers,
Marc

http://www.digifotofreak.nl