Why use Pentax?

Started Mar 18, 2013 | Questions thread
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: Why use Pentax?

audiobomber wrote:

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.

They're making APS-C lenses for their APS-C cameras. Others should be doing the same thing, especially since most DSLR's sold are APS-C.

Everyone else sells APs-C lenses too. I guess our value is different. for me as a canikon user, I find a lot of FF lenses are very good when used on APs-C and there would be no cost benefit to make a APS-C version of them - for example 50mm and 85mm, when used on aps-c they are pretty much 75-80mm and 125-135mm. sticking to what they are means canikon only has to offer one version of that lens thus reduces production cost and give user an FF upgrade path.

I acknowledge that my initial estimation of Pentax FF vs aps-c lens mayve a bit off, I was under the impression that all modern pentax lenses were APs-C, as it has been shown to me, some arent.

But on the evaluation of this lens, I do find it not as good value as competing lenses from Canon and nikon at its old price. I see it recently being listed at 1100 USD instead of its usual 1650. at current pricing it is indeed good value.

The 50-135mm is as good as any 70-200mm f2.8 zoom from other brands, with pro build quality, dust and weather-resistant and is more appropriate focal length on APS-C.

I have had the opportunity to use this lens and had read a lot of reviews, I have to say I disagree.

first and foremost, many people who buy 70-200 because they want the AF quality and IQ at the longest end, if there was a 120-300 at the same cost most people would have jumped at that. 70-200 when compared to 300 F4, 200 F2.8, 200 F2, 300 f2.8, is actually a good deal. 50-135 is simply too short (notwithstanding it emulates 70-200 on FF).

Secondly, while 50-135 matches the IQ of many lesser 70-200s, such as old canon 70-200 and sigma 70-200, it is no match for the top end 70-200 in terms of IQ, Ihave done comparison between it and Canon 70-200 F4 IS myself and compared it to 70-200 F2.8 II online, these top end canons are a league ahead, especially at the long end.

The standard set of pro lenses is 24-70mm and 70-300mm f.28, on FF bodies. That is an indisputable fact.

I understand that. I would argue it had been so not becasue there is something magical about 200mm but because 70-200 is comparatively affordable.

As you can see, the K-5 did slightly better.

i would not doubt the validity of these findings, but based on my experience shooting action, the ability to keep target on af points is more important than a fraction of second faster acquisition.

More focus points can actually be a disadvantage. Without lots of processing power, it can take longer for the camera to decide which point to use and can increase the likelihood of the wrong point acquiring focus.

I have not seen this happen on any cameras that I have used.

Some people advocate using reduced points for action for these reasons.

These people are simply wrong, it is a bit like some people hinges on the notion that manual car with foot clutch is always a better racing car despite that all modern F1 cars have done away with it. But in any event all AF systems offer modes with reduced AF points .

I have the following in FF compatible lenses in my kit, FA 28, FA 35, FA 50, D FA 100 macro, A*300mm f4. All of these lenses were designed to mount on film cameras. I also have a DA 40mm Ltd and DA* 300mm that are updated versions of older film lenses. All I need is a standard zoom and I'm all set for FF. Pentax is already working on a body design the only lenses they need are the standard pro lens kit, something like 24-70/70-200 f2.8.

This is interesting, thanks.

I'll say. ILIS is good for Canikon, it allows them to sell you the same feature over and over again. It's absolutely ridiculous that they don't offer IBIS. It is defeatable you know. If one prefers IL, turn it off in the body. Some Pentax shooters use Sigma OS on the super teles.

I agree that Canikon should offer IBIS and there is no good reason why they do not. I however think many IBIS users do not fully appreciate the benefit of ILIS. it is not just a matter of selling the same feature over and over, it offers something that IBIS cannot. firstly the stablisation in ILIS is indeed more effective than IBIS, secondly it stablises the view so tracking small objects in long lenses is made much easier.

I understand you general sentiment and would agree that your views are valid, i think we just have different values. Last year I had a chance to use K5 and 12-24 + 50-135. I liked its DR capability but was not impressed with the IQ of either lens. I find Canon 10-22 and 70-200 to be superior.

I have no explanation for your bad experience.

I would not say it was a bad experience. it was not like there were beaten by kit lens. its that when compared to Tokina 11-16 and Canon 70-200, the IQ simply isnt up to the same standard.

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