[thepiman]

Hi,

I'm new to Pentax and to this forum and thank god for the latter in helping me understand the former!

I've been shooting a Canon EOS 300 for the past 10 years or so and I'm only really upgrading to digital because of the development costs of film. I have been researching which system to buy into and based on my research, I think I've developed a theory which I'd like to put to the forum for agreement or rebuttal, but definitely for discussion.

My tentative theory is twofold:

First, for the enthusiast photographer who appreciates quality but can't afford to go to full frame, Pentax offers one of the best cameras in terms of getting a good quality machine for a good price; i.e. the Pentax K-5, which is now retailing for £449 body only (that's about $675, though I haven't actually checked prices in the US, only in the UK and imported to the UK from Hong Kong). A competitor camera from Nikon would probably be the D7000 but that is retailing for £505 in Hong Kong and much more in the UK. Similarly, the Canon 60D is much more expensive than £449. I am deliberately not comparing the K-5II to the D7100 and the Canon 70D, because although the K-5II looks awesome, although it's obviously more improved than the K-5, IMHO I am not sure it is worth the large difference in price (£110 at least). If one looks at the IQ results on DXOmark.com one sees that K-5 beats most cameras at its price point, and even beats quite a few over its price point. Comparing the specs on snapsort.com one also sees that the K5 is pretty current, despite being a couple of years old. Okay so it doesn't have built in GPS and wifi, but not every photographer needs that.

Second, the compromise for preferring a Pentax K-5 over say, a Nikon D7000, or a Canon 60D, is that if one is going to buy into a lens system, you are restricting yourself slightly as there are not as many good value for money lenses for Pentax as there are for the other brands. I am actually less confident about this second theory than I am about the first theory. I think if one spends a lot of time researching and is willing to use the older K-mount lenses that don't have all the automatic features, then one can find some good lenses, but ultimately i think you pay more both in research time and in the actual costs of the lenses.

For example, the system I'm after is: (i) an ultra wide, preferably with zoom; (ii) a couple of primes at 24mm and 40mm (so that on a crop they come out at 36mm and 60mm); (iii) a sports zoom at maybe 100mm to 250mm.

In the first category, after some brilliant reviews which I've read on this forum, I think that the best option I have for my price bracket is the Sigma 10 to 20 F4-5.6 EX DC lens Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC Pentax-k it's not as fast as I'd like, and it doesn't really compete with the Tokina 11-16 ATX Pro II which simply has better reviews and has the more limited focal range I'm interested in, but it's a good compromise taking into account cost limitations.

In the second category, I like the look of the Pentax smc P-DA 40mm F2.8 but it's a bit narrower than I wanted and it's much more expensive than say the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM which retails at one third of the price! Ideally, I'd really like something at F1.4 and I have found a couple of older lenses from the 70s and 80s that fit the bill, but I think it's a shame to not have the automatic aperture control. I also like the look of Pentax SMC DA 35mm F2.4 AL which retails at about £239 and the Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8AL Limited, but that is £900! I know you pay for what you get with Pentax, but surely for less than £250 we should be able to get a good quality fast prime in the sub 35mm range? Am I missing some obvious cheaper lenses here, or is my theory right? The Nikon 35mm F1.8G only costs £139 (imported from Hong Kong).

For category three, I have not yet researched this properly, but i am assuming the Pentax smc 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED AL WR Lens will yield good results in anything but low light - certainly it is affordable and seems good value to get a weather resistant lens in this range for only £139.

So do others agree or disagree with my theories? Would be interested to hear your views, particularly if you think there are good quality and not too expensive lenses which I've missed. Effectively, my budget is £1200 to £1400 ($1950 to $2100) and I'd like to get the camera, an ultrawide zoom, the two primes (at least one of which needs to be very fast) and the weather resistant telefoto zoom.

Any help much appreciated. Thanks.

[Aristophanes]

Pentax's answer to the 40mm pancake is the equally as good XS version for much less money.

You can't get an f/1.4 in pancake. For that you need to go up to the slightly bulkier FA 50.

The 35/2.4 is a surprisingly excellent value lens. Extremely light and versatile. Fast to focus. Love mine. What it loses in pure aperture speed it makes up for in everything else. This is a lens designed to take advantage of a small design and high-ISO cameras.

I just think Pentax has tried too long to keep elevated their DA series of lenses when the price of DA bodies is falling. This is a conundrum for the company and for the industry in general.

For ultra-wide you have the Sigma 8-16mm or 10-20 in a zoom, but frankly, I use the DA 15/4, a lens no other manufacturer has. A very wide prime for APS-C with stellar flare control.

[joe.penn]

@Aristophanes covered it pretty well for you on the short lenses, bet here is your issue:

a sports zoom at maybe 100mm to 250mm

and the weather resistant telefoto zoom

my budget is £1200 to £1400 ($1950 to $2100)

None of the above quoted is possible, from Pentax, Canon or Nikon (and this is referring to the WR sports zoom and working with that budget). The 50~200 will get you absolutely nowhere shooting it with any sport (any kid running around the house for that matter). It's a descent lens only with good rich light, anything else it is a dog. You may think ISO can speed it up, well, it can - the only problem is it doesn't resolve good, you will lose massive amounts of unrecoverable detail starting at about 2000ISO with this lens.

The only option you have for a WR lens in that focal range is the *60~250 f/4 (from Pentax that is), but even that is rather slow for sports (both f/stop and AF slow). If your budget doesn't allow for that, then my recommendation would be the Tamron 70~200 2.8 (only as a cheaper alternative) and take the chances on the weather.

[vanyagor]

Hi,
I've been shooting a Canon EOS 300 for the past 10 years or so and I'm only really upgrading to digital because of the development costs of film.

I assume you should have some EF-mount lenses then. In this case I do not see why would you want to switch the system. Personally I would get the Canon 7D and use it with the lenses you already have. if the 7D is too expensive, any older body will do just great. I had a chance to shoot with Canon 20D and it is still an amazing camera. After all lenses can last and bodies will need to be replaced anyway. Starting with a cheaper/older/used body may be a good idea IMHO.

First, for the enthusiast photographer who appreciates quality but can't afford to go to full frame, Pentax offers one of the best cameras in terms of getting a good quality machine for a good price; i.e. the Pentax K-5

It is true. Though the same can be said about Nikon and Canon.

The price depends on the region and on time so in different locations and at different times of the year the price balance will be different. When the K-5 was just introduced it was ridiculously overpriced compared to competition. By the time I decided to buy it it became the same price as the Nikon D7000 (actually I got a special extra $100 discount- which helped deciding in favor of the K-5). Ok now the K-5 seems to be cheaper the the D7000 (by $200 in the US). But you should also consider the fact that Nikon has lost very little value compared to its introductory price, while Pentax has sharply dropped in price over the time - and this is rather typical situation IMHO. Which means Pentax may be not as good an investment as for instance Nikon in long run.

the Canon 60D is much more expensive than £449.

60D does feel like a cheaper/lower end body than Pentax K-5. If you value the sturdiness of the K-5, you won't like the 60D most probably. Interestingly, the 60D also kept its value much better than the Pentax K-5. ~2 years ago when I bought my K-5, the 60D was actually cheaper. When the K-5 was introduced it was actually compared to the 7D (they had similar price when they were released if I remember correctly). And on paper K-5 seemed to have an edge. However not everything can be summarized "on paper".

I am deliberately not comparing the K-5II to the D7100 and the Canon 70D, because although the K-5II looks awesome, although it's obviously more improved than the K-5, IMHO I am not sure it is worth the large difference in price (£110 at least).

If I were buying now, I would definitely consider the newer models (K-5 II). For me the biggest issue is front-focusing of the K-5 under certain conditions. If that alone has been fixed, I would easily pay the extra for the new model.

If one looks at the IQ results on DXOmark.com one sees that K-5 beats most cameras at its price point, and even beats quite a few over its price point. Comparing the specs on snapsort.com one also sees that the K5 is pretty current, despite being a couple of years old.

The DxO numbers do not mean that much in fact. The K-5 does look pretty good yes, though I would be careful about giving a clear preference to the K-5 based on DXO data alone.

Okay so it doesn't have built in GPS and wifi, but not every photographer needs that.

Of the cameras of that generation, only some Sonys had built in GPS. Newer ones - I don't know, they may be out of your price range.

Second, the compromise for preferring a Pentax K-5 over say, a Nikon D7000, or a Canon 60D, is that if one is going to buy into a lens system, you are restricting yourself slightly as there are not as many good value for money lenses for Pentax as there are for the other brands. I am actually less confident about this second theory than I am about the first theory. I think if one spends a lot of time researching and is willing to use the older K-mount lenses that don't have all the automatic features, then one can find some good lenses, but ultimately i think you pay more both in research time and in the actual costs of the lenses.

That depends on the circumstances a lot. If you already have some EF-mount lenses, nothing will beat Canon in terms of cost for you. In my case I knew exactly which lens I was going to buy and it cost the same for all the systems (Tamron 17-50 f2.8), so this was not an issue for me. Also since then Pentax lenses have sharply increased in price (both current and older used ones), which makes Pentax less competitive now regarding the lenses.
Research time is not a factor IMHO. This forum provides an almost complete K-mount compatible lenses database and there are other useful resources too.

For example, the system I'm after is: (i) an ultra wide, preferably with zoom; (ii) a couple of primes at 24mm and 40mm (so that on a crop they come out at 36mm and 60mm); (iii) a sports zoom at maybe 100mm to 250mm.

My suggestion would be to build up your lens collection slowly, your priorities may change over time and you can't shoot all the lenses at the same time anyway. Start with your highest priority lens, then see if you need anything else at all.

In the first category, after some brilliant reviews which I've read on this forum, I think that the best option I have for my price bracket is the Sigma 10 to 20 F4-5.6 EX DC lens Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC Pentax-k it's not as fast as I'd like, and it doesn't really compete with the Tokina 11-16 ATX Pro II which simply has better reviews and has the more limited focal range I'm interested in, but it's a good compromise taking into account cost limitations.

My personal choice was Pentax 15mm Limited, which I have sold as I decided I do not have much use for this wide. As for Tokina, personally I believe Pentax is on the rise and hopefully 3rd-party lens makers will support Pentax mount in future, so maybe you can eventually find your Tokina in K-mount

In the second category, I like the look of the Pentax smc P-DA 40mm F2.8 but it's a bit narrower than I wanted and it's much more expensive than say the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM which retails at one third of the price!

You can get the 40mm f2.8 XS which is much cheaper though (than the 40mm Limited) Also I don't know how rigid are your focal length preferences. Yeh, the 40mm Limited is pricy after the price has increased a year ago. Though the 35mm f2.4 is still relatively cheap.
For 24mm, the cheap option with Automatic aperture would be the SMC Pentax-A 24mm F2.8 (manual focus)If you can consider slightly different focal length instead (28?) you will find more (cheap, and AF) options.

Ideally, I'd really like something at F1.4 and I have found a couple of older lenses from the 70s and 80s that fit the bill, but I think it's a shame to not have the automatic aperture control.

Look at the SMC Pentax-FA 50mm F1.4 It is AF and auto-aperture too.

I also like the look of Pentax SMC DA 35mm F2.4 AL which retails at about £239

This one used to be $170 in US a bit more than a year ago. Hopefully the prices will drop at some point. Or at least the will be having some holiday sales.


Bottomline: In my POV, simply the fact that K-5 is rated high by DXO is not enough to pick a system based solely on that. Any brand system could be a good one depending on your particular needs. Having in mind your lens preferences it is not clear if Pentax can give you the cost advantage over other systems. IMHO there needs to be some other significant reason in order to give preference to one particular brand.

In my case it is the compatibility of the K-mount and the K-5 with old M42 lenses. For some people it is affordable WR, for others it is more compact size and smaller weight + better ergonomics (purely subjective of course) of the Pentax. One system may simply be more fun to use than others for you. Try them all out. Maybe rent each of your options for a day and go out shooting and see which one you prefer.

When I was choosing my system I was leaning heavily towards Nikon (D7000) due to larger user base and all that follows. I went for Pentax because I got a better deal and now I am stuck with it because I have too many old M42 lenses I can easily use with it. I do find the Pentax more quirky and the AF less smart than on the Nikon and Canon bodies I briefly used, others may have completely different experience.

[pinholecam]

You did not mention what you use the camera for, which will influence what others will recommend you.

But first thing first.
Camera body.
I'd say forget the K5 and look at a K30.
Cheaper, lighter and improved in CDAF, and AF accuracy.
I switch from a K5 to a K30 and don't have any regrets over it.
This will save you some money or at least get you the improvements of the K30 over the K5.


Now, lenses.

The first 2 things to note about Pentax that the competition does not offer :
1. Shake reduction on ALL the lenses (that adds weight and price to lenses in most other systems)
2. Typically smaller form factor (compare DA40 to EF-40; DA50/1.8 to EF-50/1.8; DA15ltd to .... er nothing )

Wide lenses - you get what you pay for. The faster it is, the more expensive. Why would you need it to be fast anyway? Most uses will be stopped down for more DOF and sharpness.
In any case, there is the cheap Tamron 17-50/2.8 to consider (not ultra wide though)
Else, the Pentax DA12-24/4 is f4 at all FL.
There is also the Samyang 14/2.8

Normal (ish) - As others have mentioned, the DA40/2.8 XS IS the same as the 40/2.8ltd for less. And its a real pancake, not a muffin like the Canon EF-40.
The DA35/2.4 is slower than the competition, but its no 'knocky plastic' like them either. Smaller and sharp from f2.4.
I also know that T-stop can be different (I've compared my EF50/1.8 vs other Pentax 50's and it was always 0.5stop dimmer)
For the 50mm, consider the DA50/1.7 or FA50/1.4 their price is pretty close or you can get them 2nd hand here. Again, these are a fine balance of size/portability/build/bokeh/sharpness vs the competition.


As for the WR lens, who else offers 18-55 or 50-200 and 18-135 as a weather sealed option for cheaper?

[thepiman]

Thank you to Aristophanes, Joe, Vanyagor and Pinholecam: all very useful contributions.
To clarify my post and answer your questions:

The only Canon lens I have is the kit lens that came with my Eos 300 film camera. It is super light and I have taken some beautiful shots with it, but it's quite slow and given you can buy it second hand for about US$50 I had not really thought of this sole lens as being a reason to stay with Canon, although obviously if I were to buy a cropped sensor camera (I can't afford FF) and buy EF lenses as opposed to EF-S, I could use those lense on my Eos 300 which would be cool. However, I need a camera before the end of July hence not willing to wait for the Eos 70D (or even pay the $1200 pricetag for it). Therefore, whilst Canon is an option, I want to explore Pentax as I believe it does offer some excellent cameras and was really impressed by the reviews of the K-5. I hadn't considered the K-30 but will look at that in a shop as soon as I can find it.

Regarding my use of the lenses: for the Ultra wide I would like to take artistic shots of buildings and landscapes. I want to play with the perspective, but not so much that ineed a fisheye. I agree it doesn't need to be fast, just good quality.

For the primes, I want to use it for street photography and portraits with lots of Bokeh.

For the sports zoom, I want to be able to take pictures of whales and dolphins splashing around whilst I'm on a speedboat, or take pictures of animals on safari. For the former, there will be plenty of light reflected from the water, so it doesn't need to be particularly fast, just good quality. The WR was important as on a boat you get pretty wet. For the latter activity, if you're trying to photograph a monkey in a bush or up a tree, having a faster lens would be an advantage, although I agree that to keep price down I may have to compromise on this.

Thanks again,

thepiman

[Rondec]

There are a couple of things where I think Pentax stands out. They are the only company that makes weather sealed lenses that are available for a reasonable cost. A lens like the DA 18-135 is a very nice lens, covers 98 percent of your walk around needs and is quite reasonably priced, particularly on the used market. In body image stabilization is awfully handy as well, as pinhole says, it makes all of your lenses (even really old ones) stabilized, you don't pay for it with each lens, and your lenses tend to be smaller without it.

The important thing when deciding on a brand is to look at the system that you want. What focal lengths/lenses will cover your needs. I think the K30 would be fine for you, by the way, unless you think you would want a grip down the road.

Good luck with your decision!

[thepiman]

Rondec, thanks for the recommendation. Looking at the SMC DA 18-135 F3.5 to 5.6 it does look like a good lens and very tempted to just get that as a starter lens for the moment, following on from your recommendation and the recommendation of others. My concern would be whether you can still get nice Bokeh with it at 30 to 40mm at relatively low light, but I guess this will be down to technique?

Regarding the recommendation to get the K30, it's certainly tempting to go for something which is 90g lighter than the K5 as that is just about enough weight to make it noticeably lighter, but both the K5 and the k30 are currently retailing at very similar prices (I've seen both on froogle.co.uk for about £450) and I fear there is less value in the current price of the K-30 because it's newer. I don't think I'll ever want a Grip, but with the K-5 you have almost twice as long battery life than with the K30. Startup delay is also half a second faster with the K-5 (though not sure that's actually that much).

What do you think are the negatives of the K-5 which might have been improved in the K-30?

Thanks for your help,

thepiman

[Rondec]

Rondec, thanks for the recommendation. Looking at the SMC DA 18-135 F3.5 to 5.6 it does look like a good lens and very tempted to just get that as a starter lens for the moment, following on from your recommendation and the recommendation of others. My concern would be whether you can still get nice Bokeh with it at 30 to 40mm at relatively low light, but I guess this will be down to technique?

Regarding the recommendation to get the K30, it's certainly tempting to go for something which is 90g lighter than the K5 as that is just about enough weight to make it noticeably lighter, but both the K5 and the k30 are currently retailing at very similar prices (I've seen both on froogle.co.uk for about £450) and I fear there is less value in the current price of the K-30 because it's newer. I don't think I'll ever want a Grip, but with the K-5 you have almost twice as long battery life than with the K30. Startup delay is also half a second faster with the K-5 (though not sure that's actually that much).

What do you think are the negatives of the K-5 which might have been improved in the K-30?

Thanks for your help,

thepiman

Let me say that I use two K5s currently and am quite happy with them, so not a big deal which you choose. Pros for the K5 are: a little faster fps and deeper buffer, 14 bit processing, ability to add a grip, quieter shutter, more than 3 exposure multi exposure available, and longer battery life. Pros for the K30 are better video options (although no audio jack in put), focus peaking, probably more consistent auto focus with tungsten light, and smaller size.

I think both are good cameras and would recommend either one. I think for still photography, the K5 still is probably better due to more buttons, easier access to settings without a lot of menu diving...

[pinholecam]

Rondec, thanks for the recommendation. Looking at the SMC DA 18-135 F3.5 to 5.6 it does look like a good lens and very tempted to just get that as a starter lens for the moment, following on from your recommendation and the recommendation of others. My concern would be whether you can still get nice Bokeh with it at 30 to 40mm at relatively low light, but I guess this will be down to technique?

Regarding the recommendation to get the K30, it's certainly tempting to go for something which is 90g lighter than the K5 as that is just about enough weight to make it noticeably lighter, but both the K5 and the k30 are currently retailing at very similar prices (I've seen both on froogle.co.uk for about £450) and I fear there is less value in the current price of the K-30 because it's newer. I don't think I'll ever want a Grip, but with the K-5 you have almost twice as long battery life than with the K30. Startup delay is also half a second faster with the K-5 (though not sure that's actually that much).

What do you think are the negatives of the K-5 which might have been improved in the K-30?

Thanks for your help,

thepiman

I did a K30 review from a user standpoint.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-30/218715-pentax-k30-out-about-user-review.html

I used the K5 for close to 3yrs.
Was probably some of the earliest people outside Japan to get them.
I thought I'd miss out on the top lcd the most, since all the cameras I've used had one since film days, but I was pleasantly surprised that I did not.
Other bits are covered in the review.

[mgvh]

I'm using the K-30, and I would agree w/ the OP that the Sigma 10-20 (I have the older f4-5.6 EX DC) would be a good choice for his intents.
I also recommend the DA 18-135 for the all-purpose, WR combo.
I have the DA 35 f2.4 and DA 50 f1.8. They are both excellent lenses, but I don't know how they compare to the 40XS.
For the long end, the 50-200 WR would be nice, but I have to mention the DA or DAL 55-300, given the OP's intents. I just used my DAL on one of those whale-watching deals, and it worked great. The pic below was at 135mm, but I have usable shots even at 300mm taken on an overcast day from a rolling boat with people jostling around! I've also had great success using that 55-300 for sports, soccer in particular. Once in range, it focuses quickly and just seems to be able to get the pic.

[Kozlok]

Get the K30 /18-135 kit, the Sigma 10-20 and the Sigma 30/1.4 as a fantastic starter kit. Add the Tamron 70-200 if you need a fast long zoom, or the 55-300 if you just want something longer.

The 18-135 is really pretty good, especially from 20-70. The Sigma 30 is an indoor workhorse, great at low light.

I love my limited primes, but they really aren't necessary.

[Class A]

Pentax offers one of the best cameras in terms of getting a good quality machine for a good price;

Exactly right.

Build quality and ergonomics are excellent and Pentax usually manages to squeeze more quality out of a sensor than other manufacturers that use the same sensor.

Second, the compromise for preferring a Pentax K-5 over say, a Nikon D7000, or a Canon 60D, is that if one is going to buy into a lens system, you are restricting yourself slightly as there are not as many good value for money lenses for Pentax as there are for the other brands.

It is true that Canon/Nikon have a number of cheap f/1.8 lenses for which there are no good equivalents in the Pentax lineup.

Pentax had some nice bargains in the past, e.g., the FA 50/1.4 for $199, but sadly due to a shiny new price scheme, these are no more.
Nevertheless, I believe that many Pentax lenses still represent good value for money and that Canon/Nikon glass gets very expensive really quickly.

Luckily, there are third-party manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron that complement the Pentax lens lineup in many, many ways.

In the first category, after some brilliant reviews which I've read on this forum, I think that the best option I have for my price bracket is the Sigma 10 to 20 F4-5.6 EX DC lens.

Did you notice that there is a constant f/3.5 version of this lens?

I have a copy and I love it.

Here are some sample pics from the Sigma 10-20/3.5 EX.

Also note the Sigma 28/1.8 EX which is not quite an f/1.4 but very versatile due to its close focusing ability. They even call it a MACRO, but it doesn't get to 1:1 magnification. There isn't much space left between subject and front lens, though, when you reach the MFD.

...the Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8AL Limited, but that is £900!

I feel that this lens is too expensive. Its build is excellent and optically it is in a league of its own, but they have been selling this for quite a bit less money for years and years. People are still buying it even for the current price, that's why Pentax can afford to keep selling it at the price. One day, I'll get a copy myself. It is almost a "must have" for a Pentaxian.

For category three, I have not yet researched this properly, but i am assuming the Pentax smc 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED AL WR Lens will yield good results in anything but low light - certainly it is affordable and seems good value to get a weather resistant lens in this range for only £139.

This lens hasn't got a great reputation in terms of optics.

The 55-300mm is pretty cheap as well but quite a bit better. Sadly, it isn't weather-sealed.

Regarding the K-30: Fantastic value for money, but I personally wouldn't want to be without a top LCD display.

[TER-OR]

I have the Sigma 28mm f1.8 and it's been very useful. It is, however, huge for a 28mm lens.