Why use Pentax?

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

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

You admit in another post that you don't know Pentax's reasons, so how can claim that your speculative statement is true?

I concede it is my speculation, lets just say, for one reason or another, Pentax has produced lenses that are difficult to directly compare with other brands. Happier?

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 fields of view.

Well, I dont see it like that.

Are you saying that 70-200 isn't a common zoom range?

I did not tsay 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.

So what? Your original point was about the Pentax 50-135 and I've dealt with that. Other FLs, no matter how interesting in themselves, have nothing to do with that subject.

it is relevant because 70-200 isnt popular merely because there is some magic in this range but because it is a good balance of range vs cost. Canon owners have been very happy to use this 112-320 lens. in fact if canon did make a 50-135 lens and sell it at the same price as the 70-200, it would not sell as well. You can call this speculation too btu the fact that Canon is not making this lens should suffice as an indication of their own confidence.

Of course it's weird on APS-C - so are most lenses that were designed for FF. I explained why 43mm was chosen; again, you talk of different FLs that no matter how interesting in themselves, have nothing to do with that subject.

As i have said, even at 43mm it is uncommon and thus avoids direct comparison to other lenses.

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".

Try this, then http://www.northcoastphotographer.net/files/7a6bf1d209118e0d9790f4d66274c8b1-124.html

A magazine in 2002 said one of these lenses was among top three they tested. Gee that carries a lot of weight and how could I have missed this issue all this time.

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).

Which just goes to show that relying on numbers alone is a foolish way to assess lens performance.

So what exactly makes a good lens? the "spice" as Mr Jun HIrakawa puts it? I mean no disrespect for HIrakawa but his analysis sound very much like a failing ideal making excuses and blaming it all on every bodies else. It is not just every major lens test sites that care about resolution, purple fringing and focus plain curvature - pros and customers do too and that is why pros buy lenses that do well in these areas and ultimately customers buy photos that are sharp and clean.

It is fine that you subscribe to HIrakawa's philosophy but it is a tab arrogant to call everyone else foolish.

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