[manishved]

Wow - that was long. Looks like you have not discovered the AF capabilities of the K3 yet.....

I wholeheartedly concur.
But... you see just a part of the whole picture.
It is true that the Hoya property nearly killed Pentax (i still remember LOTS of fanboys on this forum defending them), and that the lack of Tokina lenses in Pentax mount has been a shame (Tokinas are the best 3rd party lenses as far as mechanical build is concerned). It is also true that Sigma is either retiring, or not releasing at all, some of their best objectives, in Pentax attachment.
We'll see how the Ricoh property will do, at the moment is too early to say anything. IMHO, to regain a place between the major players there are three points which are necessary (but not sufficient, "the market" is a weird, unstable divinity): 1) a good, innovative FF body, soon!, to reinforce the brand 2) a better line-up of lenses, priced to sell (with a few fast primes) 3) a good cheap body, sold at a loss, to regain access to the big sale chains. At the same time keep up with the good work already done, with in-body stabilization (improved for panning?), compatibility with old lenses (uncrippled mount in the FF?... it won't cannibalize the new ones, and would be a huge selling aid) and specializing (and advertising!) as an outdoor/wildlife brand (all/most lens line-up upgraded to WR?). All that would win back the favor of 3rd party lensmakers.

Having said all that - everybody on this forum spoke up his own mind about the issue, at least once... and i've never done it before - we're talking about the present, isn't it?
If i were up to buying my first DSLR, as the ordinary inexperienced user, i'd probably buy Nikon. Unfortunately for Nikon i'm not inexperienced, i can't stand mainstream, and before buying my first digital reflex i already had a good selection of the best Pentax lenses. So for me it has been a no-brainer.
Even considering to start from scratch, and even just taking into account the availability of lenses, it would be a tough call. I like travel photography. In-body SR and affordable WR zooms perfectly fit that kind of photography.
If you like to shoot sports, why not Canon?
Whatever... as far as lens availability is concerned, if we look at the situation, NOW, it's not as dark as it's painted. Even excluding the immense number of M42 and mechanical P/K objectives, if you're not affected by some sort of compulsive buying syndrome, a healthy dose of patience and a bit of common sense can still be quite helpful. Add a few stroke of luck and you got all it's needed!
I was following this thread cause one of the very few lenses i miss is a good f/2.8 AF zoom in the 70/80mm to 200/210mm range. I've decided to stick to my trusty Tokina MF until i find a better AF alternative, second-hand and very reasonably priced.
Personally i'm not concerned by new lenses, as far as i remember i bought only ONE new (non-kit) lens. An old Sigma MF macro. Most of my cameras, and all but one lenses, were purchased second-hand. I concede that some of the best primes were acquired when the prices were extremely favorable, and that i am not considering inflaction, but i am almost sure that none of the lenses,in the list that follows, was payed more than 250 euros.
I have a list cause i had the silly idea to include all the lenses i use with my Pentax DSLRs in my signature. The character limit is reached too soon, so i decided to make a jpeg. To make it readable the size exceeds the limit, so i had to renounce ....but i still have the list.
Take it as an example of what can be acquired with plenty of dedication, a whole lot of patience, some common sense and a decent amount of knowledge. I don't like bragging, and i've been undecided for some time... then i decided that it's just a practical example, something that might encourage others to be considerate, and don't bend, backwards or in any other direction, if prices get out of control. It is the market god who dictates prices, well... now i remember, wait... we're the market! Nobody else but ourselves.

Pentax:
A 3.5/15; A 2.8/20; A 2.8/24; K 2/28; A 2/35; M 2.8/40; DA 2.8/40 Limited; M 1.4/50; A 1.7/50; F 2.8/50 macro; FA 4/28-70 AL; A* 1.4/85; K 2.2/85 Soft; M 4/100 bellows; K 2.5/135; A* 2.8/200; A* 2.8/300 + 2x & 1.4X L; A 3.5/35-105; F 3.5-4.5/35-135; DA 4-5.6/50-200 WR; A 4/70-210; F 4.5-5.6/100-300; DA 4-5.8/55-300; 1.7X AF; Pentax 67 4/120 Soft
Others:
Sigma 2.8/16 fisheye; Sigma 2.8/28-70 AF; Sigma 2.8/70 Macro AF; Sigma Apo Macro 5.6/180; Sigma 4-5.6/70-300 Apo Macro; Tokina 3.5-4.5/20-35 AF; Tokina 2.8/80-200 MF; Tokina 4.5-5.6/80-400 AF; Tamron 2.8/17-50; Tamron 2.5/90 macro MF & AF; VarioZenitar-K 2.8-3.5/20-45; Industar-61 2.8/50 L/Z; Noflexar 4/200 & 4.5/135 Macro; Revuenon 1.2/50; Porst 1.2/55; Porst 1.8/135; Arsat 2.8/35 shift; Voigtlander Color-Ultron 1.8/50; Novoflex follow-focus heads (many); CZJ Sonnar 4/300; Pentacon 5.6/500; Kenko 2x Macro KA; Vivitar 2x KA

The Pentax-F 70-210 and the Pentax-F 85mm Soft are not present cause the former has a fungal infection that must be cleaned, and the latter is still in Japan (just purchased).
As far as i remember ALL my digital bodies but one (the K-5 II) were payed under or around the 250 euros limit. Even the only digital i bought new, the Ricoh-branded K-01, was payed about 240 euros, with kit lens, sealed (end of inventory, off Ebay, from the UK).
If i don't find the Sigma zoom second-hand, at a price i deem reasonable (depending on my current finances), i'll wait for a Tamron one, or for the AF version of my Tokina (which should be optically improved, hopefully). If i have to wait, i'll wait...

BTW, i have been waiting for very long the Pentax full frame. Then i decided it was time to stop being foolish and purchased two old digital bodies (K10D and K200D). I soon realized that i had placed too much faith in the improvement of AF technologies. It was not much better than with the Sfx-n and the K1p: almost useless in many conditions, good if the subject and the illumination are OK.
With the K-5 II there is some improvement, with the K-01 it is... well, let's forget about it At the price i payed, the K-01 is a must have, but has its strong points and its idiosyncrasies.
All that to say a very simple thing: AF is NOT a panacea.
In some cases there is nothing as a good MF technique. Preset focus, and.. click, shoot when the subject traps in.
In some other cases, birds or wildlife with busy background, a manual follow-focus like the Novoflex can't be beaten (if you take the time to learn how to properly operate the "trigger").
If you don't shoot mainly sports, and don't need a strong AF tracking performance, i see very few reasons to switch brand. Just think about all those P/K and M42 very fast primes... we're not talking pixel peeping, there are old lenses which have a distinctive optical signature, something i can't emulate in PP (maybe somebody can, but i'm too lazy to even think about it, it is already giving me an headache).
Sometimes i bend and go with the flow. I got the advice to buy the Pentax DA 55-300mm so many times... that i eventually bought one. Ebay, second-hand, like new.
I am on vacation with my bike, too little room for baggage, so i brought the K-01 and a few smallish lenses.
Two days ago i had to photograph the performance of a well known dutch singer, a very sexy and energetic girl She jumped all the time out of focus, in the end i had few real keepers.
I felt i missed a good fast MF zoom, with a well-damped, long-throw focusing ring. Prefocusing, and giving small manual adjustments, would have made my work easier.

So let's collectively mourn the demise of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, and let's hope that Ricoh doesn't follow the footsteps of Hoya.
Just don't say that, at this moment, it is a good reason to switch brand. I still see many reason to think the opposite, especially for the money-conscious advanced amateur.

Sorry for the long blurb. I thought that sometimes practical examples are the only way to go to the point, and make yourself understood

cheers

Paolo

[cyberjunkie]

Wow - that was long. Looks like you have not discovered the AF capabilities of the K3 yet.....

Yes, you're right!
I don't post often, but when i do...

I will use the K-3 when you will buy the next generation and sell yours
You know, i'm getting old and i don't react very quickly... except when i'm driving my sport bike
Seriously, i've read that the K-3 has a good AF, even the K-5 II is no slouch, though i think that continuos tracking of fast moving subjects is still far from perfect, and it hunts back and forth at a level of illumination the human eye handles with ease. Though the real problem is the choice of the subject. Which face do you want in focus, that in background or that in foreground, off center? With fast moving subjects there is no time to focus and recompose. You got to tell the camera... but then MF is faster

P.S.
I checked, and i have to correct my statement on the cost of lenses. The Tokina 80-400mm AF was €275, and of course the A Star 300mm f/2.8 was much. much more, even back at the time.

cheers

P

[JimmyDranox]

One night I decided to try my K-5IIs with my Sigma 50mm F1.4 HSM, and Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM, in dark condition. Of course, with AF. I was amazed. It focus in places where I couldn't see with the naked eye any detail. And it focus fast, without focus assist lamp. No way to focus manually in that conditions.

Of course nobody have to believe me without a proof.

So, first picture, with Sigma 50mm at F1.4. With my eye I could see only the general shape of this small bush, no way to see the branches. Distance, about 10 maybe 15 meters away. It was in the shadows created by some trees. And as an amateur astronomer, I can tell that my night vision is good, much better than others. The only problem of this first shot, the exposure. Somehow, a common problem of this camera in low light. I must say, there is no PP, just resize.

Second picture, with Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 HSM, at around 30meters away. Same problem of exposure. but the focus is OK for those impossible conditions. Same, no PP.

Third picture, is the same with the second, but with only one correction, shadows.

[cyberjunkie]

Impressive.
It seems i have to correct myself. Just believe me, with the lenses i tried, that low light AF accuracy is out of question.
Unfortunately my best, and faster, AF lenses were acquired after my last shooting session in very low light.
It was a buddhist function, in Laos, held around sunset. I had my K-5 II and my cheap workhorse, the FA 28-70 f/4 AL.
Under a certain level of illumination, the combo gave up, and started hunting. I continued with an old 50mm f/1.4 series M, but it was not easy. I had to prefocus and wait for the people stepping in the right place...
I will try my f/2.8 "normal" zooms in really low light, hopefully quite soon. I don't think i will be able to test the same kind of lenses you own, not as soon at least!
Fast 50mm AF primes are getting quite expensive, and the Sigma 70-200 just sold on Ebay for 417 USD, plus shipment and taxes... but it's NOT tested, the seller has no camera to actually test the lens, so it is sold AS IS!
Imported to the EU, it would be more than 400 euros, for a lens which could have the AF totally kaputt.
There must be something i don't get...

Setting aside the price dynamics, if you read my (long) post, you'll find that i'm concerned about AF tracking of moving subjects.
Static subjects are easier... as your pictures show. Though i must admit I didn't think that with fast modern lenses the result were so good.

cheers

P

---

Last edited by cyberjunkie; 08-18-2014 at 02:14 PM.

[JimmyDranox]

IMO, is the camera, and also the shear size of the frontal element of the lenses, not only the F number. For example, with my Tamron 17-50 F2.8, which has a smaller frontal glass, I cannot get the same result. It needs more light to focus. In fact, that was the cause why I choose Sigma 50mm F1.4, over Pentax FA 50mm F1.4. From astronomy I know that a bigger frontal element means more light, more resolution, more anything (weight, size, price)

About the speed of AF on moving target, I have tried both the Sigma 70-200 and Tamron 70-200, and with K-5 was a difference, with K-5IIs not so much, maybe none. Anyway, maybe my manual focus is not so good, but in my experience, still, I consider AF much faster than manual focus. In my gallery you can see some shots of some very difficult moving targets, swallows. Yes, very difficult. But for moving cars, or people, no problems with AF.

[ElJamoquio]

Let's say I use step-up rings on an FA50mm F/1.4 and slap an 86mm UV filter on it. The 86mm FA50mm F/1.4 wouldn't become better than the Sigma.

Not all of the light that hits the Sigma front element is used.

[JimmyDranox]

Let's say I use step-up rings on an FA50mm F/1.4 and slap an 86mm UV filter on it. The 86mm FA50mm F/1.4 wouldn't become better than the Sigma.

Not all of the light that hits the Sigma front element is used.

I don't what to argue, because I don't have the ray trace for this lens, I don't know the type of glasses used, the refraction index, etc. But with my small knowledge of optics, it's really (very) important the size of the element, even for this lens. And a filter is not changing the light pass, to be considered optically active. Anyway, this joke about a filter was good one.

---

Last edited by JimmyDranox; 08-18-2014 at 04:21 PM.

[ElJamoquio]

When the lens focal length gets very long, the quality tends to go up with larger front elements - but part (most?) of that is because the front elements are so large, economics dictates that it shouldn't be coupled with cheap components. In other words, you can't purchase a Ferrari engine in a Volkswagen body, or a volkswagen engine in a Ferrari body.

There is still an element of truth to your comments, because as the lens gets longer & has more elements, more things can be corrected; but generally as the lens gets longer the front element needs to be wider as well. I just think that, as focal length gets smaller, the front element diameter has less of an impact.