PentaxForums.com - View Single Post

Pentaxor · 07-01-2009, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by kunik

the mkII is an awesome camera at a nice size and weight for FF IMHO. Its the Canon lens lineup that is the weak point. In the "normal zoom" range they have 17-40, 24-105 and 24-70. The 17-40 and 24-70 both have a bad reputation and cost a lot (especially 24-70) while the 24-105 is the ONLY one in the range with IS but it is an F4 lens instead of F2.8. Pentax 16-50 sits on my camera most of the time, produces better images than Canon and has stabilization. And have you seen how big those lenses are? I still can't figure out why the Tamron 28-75 produces better images than Canon 24-70 but its only HALF the physical size

Once you get out of those normal zooms Canon makes some nice glass... but YIKES - you gotta pay for it.

actually, the MK II is heavy and bulky for me (with or without the lens). sure it catches a lot of attention and thus deserves the attention for what it is. but for my personal use, coupled by it's heavy lenses, those are just too much baggage weight for me to carry. and I don't usually bring 1 or two lenses. let's just say that I'm only a medium lightweight person who loves to bring a lot of equipment. I would certainly appreciate light materials for carry.

07-01-2009, 08:05 PM	#18
Pentaxor Pentaxian Location: Vancouver, B.C. Gallery Photos: 3 Posts: 1,158	Originally Posted by kunik the mkII is an awesome camera at a nice size and weight for FF IMHO. Its the Canon lens lineup that is the weak point. In the "normal zoom" range they have 17-40, 24-105 and 24-70. The 17-40 and 24-70 both have a bad reputation and cost a lot (especially 24-70) while the 24-105 is the ONLY one in the range with IS but it is an F4 lens instead of F2.8. Pentax 16-50 sits on my camera most of the time, produces better images than Canon and has stabilization. And have you seen how big those lenses are? I still can't figure out why the Tamron 28-75 produces better images than Canon 24-70 but its only HALF the physical size Once you get out of those normal zooms Canon makes some nice glass... but YIKES - you gotta pay for it. actually, the MK II is heavy and bulky for me (with or without the lens). sure it catches a lot of attention and thus deserves the attention for what it is. but for my personal use, coupled by it's heavy lenses, those are just too much baggage weight for me to carry. and I don't usually bring 1 or two lenses. let's just say that I'm only a medium lightweight person who loves to bring a lot of equipment. I would certainly appreciate light materials for carry.