Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-29-2007, 01:47 PM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,420
QuoteOriginally posted by SupremeMoFo Quote
Well like I said there's no such thing as a f2.0 zoom for ANY APS-C system. As for the 80-200, it wasn't going to happen. Noone else has done that either. What you're wishing for are things that don't exist on any system other than 4-3rds.
Yup - I'm asking for a WAY-out-of-the-box design, I know. Granted, it isn't killing me that they decided to go with a 50-135 instead of 80-200, I just disagree with their thinking.

QuoteOriginally posted by alinla Quote
* Calculation based on the addition of phantom pixels produced by the FA* lens to actual pixels on the sensor.
Ahh, but sadly the phantom pixels simply take place of existing pixels, so there is no net gain of pixels. Sorry!

11-29-2007, 05:59 PM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 441
QuoteOriginally posted by Ray Pulley Quote
Ok, let's use your words then:

You started a thread where you made it clear you were ranting (I presume this means you are not a happy customer in some respects) and you post stuff like this:

"I love my K10D and all of it's wonderful features. That said, someone - ANYONE - at Pentax has to get their act together and do something for us."

Uhhh, they did. It is the 50-135 f2.8 and that lens was on the roadmap for over a year before they released it. Get over it.

...

Seems pretty clear to me that you feel that Pentax has wronged "The Customer" somehow. Isn't wrong the opposite of right? Isn't "NEVER RIGHT" the same as wrong?

and this:

"Sorry AGAIN for ranting, but at the end of the day, it's all about customer appreciation and satisfaction. I am VERY satisfied with my decision to purchase a K10D. I'd LIKE to be satisfied with my lens options too."

...

You then end the OP with the statement about Pentax getting their act together as if they had done nothing to address the market that was served by the 80-200 f2.8, which is simply untrue. They just did not design exactly what you wanted and apparently never had any plans to do so and perhaps never will.
What Pentax did was release a roadmap in late 2006 or early 2007 indicating that they would sell a DA 200mm f2.8 SDM lens and a DA 300mm f4 SDM lens by September 2007. They "wronged" the customers by failing to do so. They also stated that they would release a 60-250mm f4 SDM lens by December, 2007, as I recall. That is obviously not going to happen either. The only lenses they released this year were the DA* 16-50 and 50-135mm f2.8 SDM lenses that were announced in 2006 (and were supposed to be available shortly after the release of the K10D). And now they added a re-badged Tamron consumer super-zoom (without SDM). And that's it for new lenses in 2007. They didn't even bother with a public statement about why they disregarded the roadmap and blew off the customers waiting for those products.

For those of us shooting action sports, that's a big disappointment. I don't blame the O.P. for his disappointment and frustration. And I bet a lot of customers jumped ship like I did, or simply passed on buying a Pentax system in the first place due to the lack of suitable lenses. Even Olympus has realized that a good size segment of the market wants better quality USM lenses and fast AF for sports, as reflected by their new line of lenses with ultra-sonic motors, and the greatly improved AF system in the new E-3. All the vapor-ware promises from Pentax for the future and hints that they will get their act together "real soon now" doesn't help those who needs are not being met today.

Last edited by GaryML; 11-29-2007 at 09:41 PM. Reason: Fixed typo
11-29-2007, 07:28 PM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 668
QuoteOriginally posted by carpents Quote
Yup - I'm asking for a WAY-out-of-the-box design, I know. Granted, it isn't killing me that they decided to go with a 50-135 instead of 80-200, I just disagree with their thinking.
I'd love one too but yeah I just can't see it happening. Ah well. At any rate, I personally don't have $1600 to spend on such a lens so that's that
11-30-2007, 02:36 PM   #34
SouthShoreRob
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Ray Pulley Quote
Ok, let's use your words then:

You started a thread where you made it clear you were ranting (I presume this means you are not a happy customer in some respects) and you post stuff like this:

"I love my K10D and all of it's wonderful features. That said, someone - ANYONE - at Pentax has to get their act together and do something for us."


Uhhh, they did. It is the 50-135 f2.8 and that lens was on the roadmap for over a year before they released it. Get over it.

Ray
Ray, you keep coming back to this as a solution. As I have stated, repeatedly, the 50-135 is not the answer. Sure, it sounds like it's a great lens, but it's not long enough. Forget about the numerical value when multiplied blah blah.

Let me make this simple for you:

Canon makes a 70-200 F2.8
Nikon makes a 70-200 F2.8
Sony has a 70-200 F2.8
Olympus has a 90-250 F2.8

My earlier point about customer service speaks to this glaring omission in the Pentax lens lineup. Pentax is "wronging" its customers by not providing what, I think, most would agree is pretty much an industry standard telephoto zoom lens that appeals to a broad range of shooters - not just action junkies like me.

11-30-2007, 06:21 PM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: York Region Canada
Posts: 642
QuoteOriginally posted by ddhytz Quote
Nothing wrong to have two systems.
Nope, nothing wrong with that at all.

I have many Pentax and Nikon Dslr's, i use the combo i need for what i need it for.



Dave
12-01-2007, 04:56 PM   #36
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 828
Rob, this is not add fuel to flame this thread, but if you are seriously interested in a FA80-200/2.8 at a reasonable price there is someone at PDML who has been trying to sell his copy for the last several weeks. He just posted a FS ad again: 1200 Euros, an eminently reasonable price for a lens of this quality.
12-01-2007, 07:17 PM   #37
SouthShoreRob
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by tranq78 Quote
Rob, this is not add fuel to flame this thread, but if you are seriously interested in a FA80-200/2.8 at a reasonable price there is someone at PDML who has been trying to sell his copy for the last several weeks. He just posted a FS ad again: 1200 Euros, an eminently reasonable price for a lens of this quality.
Thank you for the lead, but alas my budget is $1000 CDN. I'm either going to nab a used Sigma 70-200 or go with the DA* 50-135 and restrict my shooting to inside of the blue line; if nothing else I guess that approach would reduce the number of images I have to sift through post game.
12-01-2007, 11:08 PM   #38
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,315
QuoteOriginally posted by SouthShoreRob Quote
Thank you for the lead, but alas my budget is $1000 CDN. I'm either going to nab a used Sigma 70-200 or go with the DA* 50-135 and restrict my shooting to inside of the blue line; if nothing else I guess that approach would reduce the number of images I have to sift through post game.
Why restrict it to the blue line? You can crop K10D images quite a bit and they are still more than satisfactory.

12-02-2007, 07:02 AM   #39
Veteran Member
nathancombs's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Waysboro va
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 517
i would have to agree with the op that 135 just is not long enof for sports i have a Takumar 135 F2.5 MF that i LOVE but it in only good for medom distance and when i am shooting sports i like to have at least a 200 - 300 with a 300 when i am shooting soccer i can cover about 1/2 the fild if i am standing behind the gole post a 135 just duse not cover it i have a Sigma APO 70-300 F 4-5.6 AF but it is no good in the school gems or for foot ball i have a Tokina AT-X 80-200 F2.8 MF that i use and i just remind my self that people have shot good sports photos with MF for a long time befor AF LOL would a good *FA 80-300 F2.8 AF be nice HELL YEA but ......... heck i would LOVE to have that Sigma 100-500 F2.8 AF but the from what i heard 10K price is too much

i am NOT interated in buying digital lenes not because i think Pentax is going FF but because i LIKE to still use my K1000 and one of the big reasons i stayed with Pentax was because i could use all my lenes on both it and my K100D and K10D i am relly intersted in doing a LOT of E6 shooting for fun
12-03-2007, 11:04 PM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northern California
Posts: 475
Try This For Simple

QuoteOriginally posted by SouthShoreRob Quote
Ray, you keep coming back to this as a solution. As I have stated, repeatedly, the 50-135 is not the answer. Sure, it sounds like it's a great lens, but it's not long enough. Forget about the numerical value when multiplied blah blah.

Let me make this simple for you:

Canon makes a 70-200 F2.8
Nikon makes a 70-200 F2.8
Sony has a 70-200 F2.8
Olympus has a 90-250 F2.8

My earlier point about customer service speaks to this glaring omission in the Pentax lens lineup. Pentax is "wronging" its customers by not providing what, I think, most would agree is pretty much an industry standard telephoto zoom lens that appeals to a broad range of shooters - not just action junkies like me.
You need some help with your reading comprehension skills. I never said that you would be happy with the 50-135 as a solution, but that Pentax DECIDED that the 50-135 would replace the slot that the FA 80-200 mf2.8 used to fill on the larger format 35mm cameras. What is so hard to understand about that?

However, what you left out of your post says it all:

Canon makes a 70-200 F2.8 - 70-200 f2.8 IS $1699
Nikon makes a 70-200 F2.8 - 70-200 f2.8 VR $1624
Sony has a 70-200 F2.8 - 70 - 200 f2.8 $1999
Olympus has a 90-250 F2.8 - 90 - 250 f2.8 $5349

Prices from B&H, Adorama, and Amazon. Image stabilization versions priced where available so as to make an apples to apples comparison to the K10D system.

Simple enough for you? Maybe you still want to talk about how much better the choices are with the other brands?

So Rob, are you saying that if Pentax tooled up a new FA* 80-200 f2.8 you would be willing to pay $1600 or $2000 or more for it like the other brands?

No? Oh that's right, you started out by complaining how expensive the available FA* 80-200 f2.8's have become and have made it clear that you want to spend no more than 1000 CAD on one. I guess that rules out all of the other brands you have listed.

Aren't these other brands treating their customers equally bad by not offering new 70-200 f2.8 lenses under 1000 CAD? How dare they not listen to their customers!

Ray
12-04-2007, 11:05 AM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 441
QuoteOriginally posted by Ray Pulley Quote

However, what you left out of your post says it all:

Canon makes a 70-200 F2.8 - 70-200 f2.8 IS $1699
Nikon makes a 70-200 F2.8 - 70-200 f2.8 VR $1624
Sony has a 70-200 F2.8 - 70-200 f2.8 $1999
Olympus has a 90-250 F2.8 - 90 - 250 f2.8 $5349
True, and Olympus and Sony's prices for premium lenses are astronomical. With the Olympus, you are getting the equivalent of a 500mm f2.8 lens when you consider the 4/3 system sensor size compared to a 35mm film frame. The closer equivalent would be the 35-100mm f2, but that is also priced in the $2400 range. And remember the O.P. was looking at $2000 for a used Pentax 80-200 f2.8, so the Nikon and Canon are actually somewhat less expensive. For around $1000, you can get the Canon lens without IS, and the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D without VR (but also without an in-lens motor).

However, there is more to the story that just price. If you go with the Nikon or Canon, you get:

1. A new lens from a dealer, rather than a used lens from some eBay seller who might have mis-described the product or might ship nothing at all.
2. A warranty-5 years for Nikon (!) and 1 year (I think) for Canon.
3. An AF system and in-lens motor that focuses faster, quieter and more reliably than any system from Pentax. The Nikon and Canon AF systems (particularly with the better bodies) runs circles around anything that Pentax has ever made for sports/action and low-light use. Even the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D will have better AF-C focus performance than any Pentax system.
4. In-lens image stabilization that gives perhaps 3 stops of stabilization, compared to perhaps 2 stops with the K10D in-body system. (Some Nikon and Canon lenses are rated at 4 stops, but not these particular f2.8 zooms.) The VR feature is of virtually no value in action photography of course, but it is helpful shooting indoor events with the 70-200mm f2.8 lens.
5. The ability to walk into a store and walk out with the lens in hand, or order from B&H and have it the next day or a few days afterwards. How many hours do you need to spend searching eBay to find a suitable Pentax lens, and how much time bidding on an auction?

So yes, perhaps you are paying a premium for a Nikon or Canon system for sports/action work, but you are getting some value for your extra money.
12-04-2007, 11:32 AM   #42
SouthShoreRob
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Ray Pulley Quote
You need some help with your reading comprehension skills. I never said that you would be happy with the 50-135 as a solution, but that Pentax DECIDED that the 50-135 would replace the slot that the FA 80-200 mf2.8 used to fill on the larger format 35mm cameras. What is so hard to understand about that?

However, what you left out of your post says it all:

Canon makes a 70-200 F2.8 - 70-200 f2.8 IS $1699
Nikon makes a 70-200 F2.8 - 70-200 f2.8 VR $1624
Sony has a 70-200 F2.8 - 70 - 200 f2.8 $1999
Olympus has a 90-250 F2.8 - 90 - 250 f2.8 $5349

Prices from B&H, Adorama, and Amazon. Image stabilization versions priced where available so as to make an apples to apples comparison to the K10D system.
Ray, you seem to have forgotten that we are talking about me shooting sports here. At 70-200 F2.8 and a minimum shutter speed of 1/250th, the IS is not particularly relevant. The fact that I shoot hockey with SR on is a mere indication that I just happen to leave it on full-time. Were I a Canon or Nikon shooter, I could get the above mentioned lenses around the 1K mark I have so openly discussed. But as a Pentax shooter, I can not. Unless of course I go for a 4 and 1/2 year old Sigma with missing lens hood and a replacement front cap like the one you PM'd me about.

Lastly, there are no apples to apples comparisons to be made here: Pentax is the only current major player (as I tried to make you understand in my last post) that does not currently offer a 70-200 F2.8 telephoto zoom - regardless of price.

How can we continue arguing about a lens that doesn't exist?

QuoteOriginally posted by Ray Pulley Quote
So Rob, are you saying that if Pentax tooled up a new FA* 80-200 f2.8 you would be willing to pay $1600 or $2000 or more for it like the other brands?
Well yeah were it brand new, with a warranty, etc. of course I, and I'm sure many others, would. Given all that I've read about this lens and the images I've seen posted here (thinking of Marc's in particular), why wouldn't I?

Rob
12-05-2007, 04:45 PM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northern California
Posts: 475
QuoteQuote:
Well yeah were it brand new, with a warranty, etc. of course I, and I'm sure many others, would. Given all that I've read about this lens and the images I've seen posted here (thinking of Marc's in particular), why wouldn't I?

Rob
Yeah, sure you would...

Ray
12-05-2007, 05:35 PM   #44
Veteran Member
Tom M's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lincoln Park, NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 782
We all want long, fast glass - just look at all the great images of birds and shit they produce..

The REAL 'matter of fact' today is that any old piece of shit lens can do pretty damn good or, OK.. Granted, we need a bit more light at the long end - I think f4 will get 99% of everyone 99% there - with exception to the specialty shooters who can justify the 4k lenses etc... Here's why..

Everyone shoots that bird in the distance at least once. Then they zoom in on the digital image to actually SEE the detail in that bird.. Once they've manipulated that zoomed-in image (ie; cropped) they sharpen it, apply tons of PS goodies, and whalla! They post the image on the 'net - The ultimate resting ground for 99.99% of the images taken with digital cameras today..

So - who wants to spend $4k on bragging rights?

Let's see your hands now
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
2k, ebay, f2.8, fa*, forum, k-mount, pentax, pentax lens, perspective, post, slr lens, telephoto
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Telephoto zoom - can help me? platinum Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 10-29-2008 06:44 AM
Telephoto Zoom Conundrum gnaztee Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 09-19-2008 11:13 AM
Which telephoto zoom lens? madisonphotogrl Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 04-18-2008 11:17 AM
Have K10D, what zoom-telephoto is best? rdrum76 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 05-25-2007 04:56 AM
Telephoto zoom Buschmaster Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 12-27-2006 11:58 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:24 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top