[Driline]

The Sigma 70-300 and Tamron 70-300 both fill the bill for the K-1. Pentax specializes in WR, and that right off the top moves the price point out of the "dirt cheap" range. And all the older Pentax lenses, 70-210 , 100-300, are available second hand and probably as good as the cheaper options from other companies, and take advantage of the SR as well.

For people who want to nit pick, there is a lot of complaining. For those who just want to get'r done, there are lots of solutions."This whole "modern lens" thing translates to " I am so dumb I'm going to toss 50 years worth of legacy glass, just so I can buy something brand new that does the same thing."

Or more often, " I know one of the reasons for buying Pentax is legacy glass, how do I negate that? How about I claim I have to have modern glass." It's a simple thought process. People who want to be negative... that's just what they do.

Norm, have you seen the reviews here on this forum regarding the Tammy? It's a POS. I would be embarrassed to have that thing stuck to my new K-1. The Sigma fares a little better but not much.

[Venom3300]

<br />
<br />
[/COLOR]
No because the D810 is more expensive than the K1, so, even with Pentax lenses, the cost of Pentax OEM system is still less expensive than Nikon OEM. I compare the cost of each system in excel and Pentax K1 and DFA lenses is the cheapest at equivalent features. The cheapest being D610+Tamron set, or 6D+Tamron set, but then you don't have 36Mpixels. I compared with Excel and Pentax still offer the best value for money. Nikon D810 + set of VR lenses is 30% more expensive than Pentax equivalent. And so you can't argue with a 6D or D610, they are not in the same league as the K1 or D810.

24 vs 36 megapixels isnt really a problem for the 150-600 type lenses. The truth is they cant resolve all 24 megapixels so spending more on 36 is a waste. Unless you are shooting a 500 or 600 f4 primes, I wouldnt concern myself with the megapixel difference.

[biz-engineer]

Well, it's easy to see that the Canon 100-400 is sharper than a Sigma 150-600 at 600mm on a 7DII. You save money on the Tamron 150-600, and even if you spend more money on a low resolution full frame body, sharpness does not even catch-up the resolution that the cheaper dslr offers. Our situation with the K1 is different, the K1 is only slightly more expensive than the cheapo Canon and Nikon, and on top of that we can crop the 36Mpixel sensor to yield an apsc resolution equivalent to a K5IIs with a sharp DFA150-450 zoom. With the K1 crop mode (or a K5IIs or a K3) you get to 675mm equivalent (1.5 x 450) while you'll get to 640mm FF equ. with the 7DII and the 100-400 @ 400. And with the Tamron or Sigma on full frame, you go to 600mm. With both DFA150-450 and Canon 100-400, are f5.6, while the Tamron and sigma at f6.3. Just see for yourself with a side by side comparison on test charts. If I'd want to save money and bulk, I'd not get a Tamron or Sigma 150-600, I'd get a 400mm prime and a high res. apsc body with good AF (K3 with a 300mm prime + TC, or a 7DII with the 400L). In both cases apsc is cheaper, sharper, and lighter. So I really don't know what benefit you get with a 6D and a Tamron 150-600 or Sigma 150-600.

---------- Post added 26-09-16 at 19:45 ----------

24 vs 36 megapixels isnt really a problem for the 150-600 type lenses. The truth is they cant resolve all 24 megapixels so spending more on 36 is a waste. Unless you are shooting a 500 or 600 f4 primes, I wouldnt concern myself with the megapixel difference.

Yes, you are correct.

[Dan Rentea]

No, I don't compare anything of now with anything that might be available in the future. I compare solutions at the time I make the purchase decision. What can happen in the future, is, per definition, hypothetical. And, so , I compared Pentax, Canon and Nikon offering on the same basis, I found that Pentax offering is in the same ballpark as others for equivalent product specifications. You can build a cheaper system with Canon or Nikon but them the specifications are inferior to Pentax. And since I already had 4 Pentax full frame lenses, it costed me less to stay with Pentax. The decision of Tamron and Sigma to offer lenses in K mount does not belong to Pentax, it belongs to Tamron and Sigma, therefore Pentax offering does compete in the market place without Tamron and Sigma.

You said you have all 4 new lenses from Pentax, you are happy with them and you don't need third party/cheap lenses. I said that I do understand your choice and that there is nothing wrong with it.

You said over and over again that K1 is in another league than 6D or D610. I said from beginning that I agree with this statement also, but you keep mention this over and over again. This thread is not about your personal vendetta against other brands. It's that difficult for you to understand this?

You said that Pentax doesn't need a Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lens because there is Pentax 150-450mm. Here I do not agree with you because for many people Pentax 150-450mm lens is too expensive, and therefore, there is A NEED for a Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lens or even for a cheap Pentax 150-600mm lens (cheaper than Pentax 150-450mm and with good IQ).

Now you say you don't speak about hypothetical lenses, but this thread is about a hypothetical lens that it could be well recieved by Pentaxians (if third party manufacturers would come back to Pentax) who doesn't want to spend 2.500$ on a lens.

And since you do not understand that not every person is willing to buy genuine Pentax lenses, I will repeat myself. Third party manufacturers are good for a system because:
- they put pressure on producers (Pentax, Canon, Nikon, etc.)
- they make a system stronger
- they leave our pockets less empty
- they gives us more choices

And since you do not understand why there is a need for third party lenses (150-600mm lenses included) in Pentax mount, here is one reason (prices are from B&H):

Pentax 15-30mm f2.8 $1.446,95 ; Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 $1.199,00
Pentax 24-70mm f2.8 $1.296,00 ; Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 $1.296,95
Pentax 70-200mm f2.8 $1.796,95 ; Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 $1.499,00
Pentax 150-450mm $2.496,95 ; Tamron 150-600mm (new version) $1.399,00

Total cost of Pentax lenses = $7.036,85
Total cost of Tamron lenses = $5.393,95

You can buy a K1 with the price difference between Pentax lenses and third party lenses. So, hypothetical or not, you can't deny the fact that there is a need for third party lenses for enthusiastic photographers (others than you and norm head).

I use a Cactus RF60 and V6 transmitter. Again, I don't count of hypothetical third party released, at one point in time, I compose with what's available.

Yet, you tried to destroy the Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lenses saying that they are cheap, not good in terms of IQ, not sharp enough, etc., only because they don't come (yet) in Pentax mount or because you probably tried a bad copy of the lens.

But when comes to flashes, a Cactus RF60 is good for you. Do you see me "destroying" your choice about having a Cactus RF60 instead of a Pentax 540FGZ flash? It's easy to do that because RF60 has no TTL, it's not a genuine product, it's cheap/plastic, has no weather sealing, etc. But, what is the point in arguing with you on this? I understood that for you the Cactus flash was the best option, based on your needs and it's more than ok for me as a reason to not judge your decision.

Now you understand that this thread is about the need for third party products, and Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm lenses happens to be third party products? If you look at your comments, 80% of them are related to your personal fight between Pentax and other brands and the other 20% are focused at destroying Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lenses. But, a Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lens can be a good option for a lot of Pentaxian, if Sigma/Tamron will release such a lens in Pentax mount. Simple as that.

---------- Post added 09-26-16 at 06:35 PM ----------

Norm, have you seen the reviews here on this forum regarding the Tammy? It's a POS. I would be embarrassed to have that thing stuck to my new K-1. The Sigma fares a little better but not much.

I'm not embarrased with the IQ from the Sigma 150-600mm lens on my old 6D (click on the image to see how it looks the bird when it's zoomed in at 1.1, and bare in mind that this is a print screen). I only imagine (based on the fact that I saw images taken with Sigma 150-600mm lens and D810/5Ds) that on K1 the IQ would be a lot better giving the fact that K1 has 36mp and no AA filter. So, why would I be embarrased about?

screen shot

Later edit. Driline, I think I owe you an apology. You referred to The Sigma 70-300 and Tamron 70-300, don't you?

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 10-01-2016 at 01:26 AM.

[Driline]

You said you have all 4 new lenses from Pentax, you are happy with them and you don't need third party/cheap lenses. I said that I do understand your choice and that there is nothing wrong with it.

You said over and over again that K1 is in another league than 6D or D610. I said from beginning that I agree with this statement also, but you keep mention this over and over again. This thread is not about your personal vendetta against other brands. It's that difficult for you to understand this?

You said that Pentax doesn't need a Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lens because there is Pentax 150-450mm. Here I do not agree with you because for many people Pentax 150-450mm lens is too expensive, and therefore, there is A NEED for a Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lens or even for a cheap Pentax 150-600mm lens (cheaper than Pentax 150-450mm and with good IQ).

Now you say you don't speak about hypothetical lenses, but this thread is about a hypothetical lens that it could be well recieved by Pentaxians (if third party manufacturers would come back to Pentax) who doesn't want to spend 2.500$ on a lens.

And since you do not understand that not every person is willing to buy genuine Pentax lenses, I will repeat myself. Third party manufacturers are good for a system because:
- they put pressure on producers (Pentax, Canon, Nikon, etc.)
- they make a system stronger
- they leave our pockets less empty
- they gives us more choices

And since you do not understand why there is a need for third party lenses (150-600mm lenses included) in Pentax mount, here is one reason (prices are from B&H):

Pentax 15-30mm f2.8 $1.446,95 ; Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 $1.199,00
Pentax 24-70mm f2.8 $1.296,00 ; Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 $1.296,95
Pentax 70-200mm f2.8 $1.796,95 ; Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 $1.499,00
Pentax 150-450mm $2.496,95 ; Tamron 150-600mm (new version) $1.399,00

Total cost of Pentax lenses = $7.036,85
Total cost of Tamron lenses = $5.393,95

You can buy a K1 with the price difference between Pentax lenses and third party lenses. So, hypothetical or not, you can deny the fact that there is a need for third party lenses for enthusiastic photographers (others than you and norm head).



Yet, you tried to destroy the Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lenses saying that they are cheap, not good in terms of IQ, not sharp enough, etc., only because they don't come (yet) in Pentax mount or because you probably tried a bad copy of the lens.

But when comes to flashes, a Cactus RF60 is good for you. Do you see me "destroying" your choice about having a Cactus RF60 instead of a Pentax 540FGZ flash? It's easy to do that because RF60 has no TTL, it's not a genuine product, it's cheap/plastic, has no weather sealing, etc. But, what is the point? I understood that for you the Cactus flash was the best option based on your needs, and it's more than ok.

Now you understand that this thread is about the need for third party products, and Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm lenses happens to be third party products? If you look at your comments, 80% of them are related to your personal fight between Pentax and other brands and the other 20% are focused at destroying Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lenses. But, a Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lens can be a good option for a lot of Pentaxian, if Sigma/Tamron will release such a lens in Pentax mount. Simple as that.

---------- Post added 09-26-16 at 06:35 PM ----------



I'm not embarrased with the IQ from the Sigma 150-600mm lens on my old 6D (click on the image and then click again to view it at full resolution). I only imagine (based on the fact that I saw images taken with Sigma 150-600mm lens and D810/5Ds) that on K1 the IQ would be a lot better giving the fact that K1 has 36mp and no AA filter. So, why would I be embarrased about?

online photo sharing

Later edit. Driline, I think I owe you an apology. You referred to The Sigma 70-300 and Tamron 70-300, don't you?

Yea I was referring to the 70-300 El ChaPo,s Did you read the Pentax forum reviews for those lenses? Not so good. But heck it's a $165 dollar lens so what can you expect. I would buy a Sigma 150-600mm just for the sheer size and coolness factor Not that I would ever use one though........My F*300 is as long as I ever need to go.

---------- Post added 09-26-16 at 02:58 PM ----------

I really don't have a Pony in this race but like I said I think both of you guys make good points.

[noelpolar]

Yes, this is a thread that continues to exceed expectations!

[Driline]

Yes, this is a thread that continues to exceed expectations!

Why are we here? As I pound my head on the table over and over Let's break out the Barbie and throw a few shrimp on. Maybe have a Pint or two?

[noelpolar]

Why are we here? As I pound my head on the table over and over Let's break out the Barbie and throw a few shrimp on. Maybe have a Pint or two?

I try to look away....... but resistance is futile..... anyway..... have you got a K-1 for that F*300 yet? (if you truly loved her you would have)

[Nicolas06]

The Sigma 70-300 and Tamron 70-300 both fill the bill for the K-1. Pentax specializes in WR, and that right off the top moves the price point out of the "dirt cheap" range. And all the older Pentax lenses, 70-210 , 100-300, are available second hand and probably as good as the cheaper options from other companies, and take advantage of the SR as well.

For people who want to nit pick, there is a lot of complaining. For those who just want to get'r done, there are lots of solutions."This whole "modern lens" thing translates to " I am so dumb I'm going to toss 50 years worth of legacy glass, just so I can buy something brand new that does the same thing."

Or more often, " I know one of the reasons for buying Pentax is legacy glass, how do I negate that? How about I claim I have to have modern glass." It's a simple thought process. People who want to be negative... that's just what they do.

Not all oldies are equivalent. If you look at my sig you'll see I use 2 FAltd and I got the FA31 used and I have the F135. So I have nothing against old. But you have to know when it is good or bad.

I am not aware of easy to find decent quality 400mm+ used Pentax lenses. Things like 70-210 don't really fit into the same category. I tried the 100-300 and while its work this lens is worse than the sigma/tamron 70-300 we have and significantly worse than the 55-300. (that unfortunately is not FF compatible).

I think there a hole there, We would benefit from the latest 70-300 from sigma or tamron that are significantly better and we would benefit from theses 150-600 even if I agree the 50-500 or a used 150-500 provide similar feature even if not as good. I am still sure that Pentax is aware and will provide at least a lense similar to 70-300 of sigma/tamron but with better quality and yes WR. Honestly I am quite confident on it. What I hope personnally is that it would ba a significant step-up in sharpness vs the 55-300, something more sold at $600-700 that is sharp rather than $400 and a bit limited in resolution at the long end. I used the 55-300 almost exclusively for 2 weeks in vacation for a safari, and there a real lack of sharpness at 300mm. This doesn't mean the lens isn't usable or great for the price through.

As for the price of WR, this is pure marketing. In term of cost, this is a few $. And Pentax doesn't need optical stabilization that I think cost more than WR so I don't see any problem for Pentax to do cheap WR lenses like the 18-135, that are albeilt great overall compromize designs.

[Nicolas06]

With both DFA150-450 and Canon 100-400, are f5.6, while the Tamron and sigma at f6.3. Just see for yourself with a side by side comparison on test charts. If I'd want to save money and bulk, I'd not get a Tamron or Sigma 150-600, I'd get a 400mm prime and a high res. apsc body with good AF (K3 with a 300mm prime + TC, or a 7DII with the 400L). In both cases apsc is cheaper, sharper, and lighter. So I really don't know what benefit you get with a 6D and a Tamron 150-600 or Sigma 150-600.

The lenses are not necessarilly the same price/category. As for a 400mm prime this is nice is you are always far away anyway but if you need to frame 200 or 300mm at time, A 400mm prime will be worse than a cheap sigma 70-300 because the composition would be completely wrong. A 400mm prime mean you likely have some other lenses and imply more lenses changes.

Having done my safari just recently, I can say that not all subject are 300 or 400mm and that changing lenses all the time to adapt is far from conveniant... And a good way to miss the shoot.

Sometime at you want something like one of the 2 following photos (respectively 170 and 260mm) and 400mm would be too much...

[Dan Rentea]

The lenses are not necessarilly the same price/category. As for a 400mm prime this is nice is you are always far away anyway but if you need to frame 200 or 300mm at time, A 400mm prime will be worse than a cheap sigma 70-300 because the composition would be completely wrong. A 400mm prime mean you likely have some other lenses and imply more lenses changes.

Having done my safari just recently, I can say that not all subject are 300 or 400mm and that changing lenses all the time to adapt is far from conveniant... And a good way to miss the shoot.

Sometime at you want something like one of the 2 following photos (respectively 170 and 260mm) and 400mm would be too much...

Exactly, a zoom lens like 150-600mm offers flexibility, good IQ (not stelar, but good IQ), it's under 1.400$ (so it's cheap compared to competition), it's not to heavy or to bulky and it can be used even with 2xTC as we see in this short clip.

You Tube

You Tube

I admit, I wouldn't use that lens with a 2xTC, but since normhead uses TC's and was interested at the beginning of this thread if the lens can be used with TC's...well, it does and it's going way up to 1200mm on a full frame body or up to 1800mm on a crop camera.

For amateur photographers these lenses can be a very good solution, and they can be used also by professional photographers (Matt Granger for example has one Tamron 150-600mm lens which he uses with his D810, despite the fact that he also has a lot of expensive stelar lenses). I don't care if Matt Granger is or is not a very good photographer, but, since he's income comes only from photography, I'm going to say he's a professional photographer (so, please let's not start a debate on who is and who isn't a professional photographer).

But some people only can say Canon is bad, Canon is expensive, Canon has old sensors, etc. Who cares what Canon does? I don't care, but to biz engineer it's more important what Canon does wrong than what a Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm can bring to Pentaxians if they will start releasing again lenses in Pentax mount. And what they bring is choices/options for consumers.

The only valid points that biz engineer has (and the reason I keep reading his comments) are related to the fact that Pentax 150-450mm it's a solid lens, with excelent IQ, weather sealing, fast focusing and the most important thing, it's already available. There is always going to be a market for this kind of lenses. I also have canon L lenses and I also rent a lot of expensive lenses, but I also love flexibility. And the fact that Sigma 150-600mm offers me a lot more flexibility than Canon 100-400mm, with 80-85% image quality compared to Canon lens, at half the price...it means that I can have options (same as bizz engineer had options when he chosed his Cactus flash over the genuine one).

So, which one is better between Pentax 150-450mm and Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm? Based on what I saw, Pentax looks better in terms of specs and build quality. But who cares if there are a lot of people who can't afford to buy it? Therefore, for the last time i say this, I do hope that Tamron/Sigma are going to come back to Pentax so that we can have more options. Or, at least I hope for a cheap Pentax 150-600mm lens.

And for God's sake, if someone wants to make a point, please use real images, taken in real conditions and not some test charts done by reviewers like Rishi...

[totsmuyco]

I totally agree Dan, I hope Sigma and Tamron will come back and make lenses for Pentax. There are a lot of lenses which have great reviews in this forum. Sigma and Tamron provides options to different users. I for one would like to have a Tamron or Sigma sport 150-600.

[clackers]

I totally agree Dan, I hope Sigma and Tamron will come back and make lenses for Pentax. There are a lot of lenses which have great reviews in this forum. Sigma and Tamron provides options to different users. I for one would like to have a Tamron or Sigma sport 150-600.

From Asahi Man's conversation at Photokina, forget it, Totsmuyco. Sigma will possibly never release another K-mount lens.

Not enough Pentaxians buy them.

[Nicolas06]

From Asahi Man's conversation at Photokina, forget it, Totsmuyco. Sigma will possibly never release another K-mount lens.

Not enough Pentaxians buy them.

If I see the history of what they says of FE mount as a reference, they changed their mind when the market share of FE mount increased. If Pentax become popular again among enthousiast or pro, people that buy lenses basically, sigma will take care of releasing lenses in K-mount. That's as simple as that.

[totsmuyco]

From Asahi Man's conversation at Photokina, forget it, Totsmuyco. Sigma will possibly never release another K-mount lens.

Not enough Pentaxians buy them.

I know that's the decision of both companies. But, I'm still hoping that there will be more of us Pentax users in the future. Well that's just hoping.