Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-10-2008, 05:27 PM   #31
Pentaxian
Arpe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,344
QuoteOriginally posted by Rick Quote
Why would you assume ...
Hey Rick, I thought I'd said all that in the post above yours, only using slightly less words!

06-10-2008, 06:00 PM   #32
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SE BC and NE Montana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 198
QuoteOriginally posted by Arpe Quote
Hey Rick, I thought I'd said all that in the post above yours, only using slightly less words!
Well, when I started writing it, your post hadn't appeared yet. Then I got interrupted to take a new puppy outside to check out the fresh Montana snow... twice. So by the time I posted, I guess you'd beat me to the punch.

Of course you did miss the parts about body selection and weather proofing, didn't you? Image stabilization?

Think of it as me filling in the missing parts... and you can housetrain the puppy next time!
06-10-2008, 09:30 PM   #33
Veteran Member
Miserere's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by Rick Quote
Why would you assume that because you don't shoot in wet or potentially wet or dusty situations, others don't as well?
Rick, far from me to assume everybody shoots like me! I said that "extreme weather" shooters are a minority. What I don't want is Pentax slapping on costly weather-sealing on lenses that will be used mostly by people in safe environments. For example, the 200mm and 300mm DA* are going to appeal and be bought by people who are serious about photography, and a large number will likely photograph wildlife, so it makes complete sense to make these lenses weather-sealed. However, a lens such as the DA 17-70, which is meant as a walk-around lens, is going to be bought mostly by mid-level, weekend warrior users (call them what you will) who just want a walk-around lens...and these users will likely not need weather-sealing. Do you see what I'm getting at? If Pentax puts weather-sealing on a consumer-grade lens, its inflated price will deter many people from buying it.

I think Pentax needs to make money, and make it quickly. Only then will Hoya let them mess around with minority lenses such as weather-sealed DA* 70-200mm, DA* 85mm f/1.4, DA* 28-70mm f/2.8, etc. The best way to make money is to build lenses that the average Joe and Joanne will purchase.

I live in Boston, it rains a lot, and I take photos when it rains too. I'm not against weather-sealing, but I do want to buy a DA* 85mm f/1.4 in my lifetime. I wouldn't mind a DA 24mm f/2 either.
06-11-2008, 12:26 AM   #34
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SE BC and NE Montana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 198
QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
Rick, far from me to assume everybody shoots like me! I said that "extreme weather" shooters are a minority.
Fair enough. But I don't consider a little bit of wet, whether from dew/rain on foilage or a bit of rain or blowing snow to be "extreme weather". That's enough to have most people getting their cameras to shelter, and it hardly qualifies as "extreme weather". Extreme weather is when waves are breaking over the camera or it's in the humidity of a jungle 24 hours a day for a week or so.

The flip side of that thought is the reason "extreme weather shooters" are such a minority is because right now most people aren't willing to expose their unprotected cameras to any kind of weather/environmental conditions that might lead to them getting wet. What are the chances that if they didn't have to worry about a little water and snow - as opposed to a camera that can survive being submerged for half an hour - they'd suddenly become "extreme weather shooters"?

QuoteQuote:
What I don't want is Pentax slapping on costly weather-sealing on lenses that will be used mostly by people in safe environments... However, a lens such as the DA 17-70, which is meant as a walk-around lens, is going to be bought mostly by mid-level, weekend warrior users (call them what you will) who just want a walk-around lens...and these users will likely not need weather-sealing. Do you see what I'm getting at?
No I don't. Where do all the cameras disappear to when it starts raining in any large city in North America? How many people do you see getting their D80's and other Nikon/Canon's dangerously close to the spray in the waterpark where their kids are screaming and having a ball?

And why is that? Maybe because those people don't think those environments are so safe after all for their non-weather protected equipment, despite the fact they're about a thirty second walk from a bus stop? I think a lot of photographers in those supposedly safe urban/controlled environments limit themselves in many situations over fear of what might get in their cameras in those situations.

It is also my feeling that while you might feel a 17-70 is meant as an urban walk-around lens, it is also a very handy outdoors walk around lens. In fact, a 17-70 and 55-300 just about covers the gamut for those of us going afield without a porter to lug along a suitcase full of lenses and attachments. My 17-70 has been pretty much living on my K10d since I got it and I find it to be an incredibly useful lens range for outdoor photography and the work that I do in the money patch. I would be A LOT more comfortable if it also had weather sealing - as it is, right now it is the weak link in my camera.

Furthermore... why should those with weather sealed Pentax cameras who shoot outdoors have to buy a DA* when we don't feel we have a need for that last little extra bit of image quality but sure could use the weather sealing? A weather sealed Pentax with a non weather sealed lense on it basically isn't weather sealed anyways, when it gets right down to it.

QuoteQuote:
I live in Boston, it rains a lot, and I take photos when it rains too. I'm not against weather-sealing, but I do want to buy a DA* 85mm f/1.4 in my lifetime. I wouldn't mind a DA 24mm f/2 either.
Hmmm... lenses that for me and my photography are essentially useless. I'd rather they built something else instead of an overpriced prime that few can justify the expense of, thanks. The point being while one person thinks weather proofing is a costly and unnecessary expense, others think those high quality primes that cost twice as much to get the last 5% of image quality out of the camera is where the real unnecessary expense lies. The marketing department's dilemma.

I can't prove it, but I'll bet Pentax would sell one hell of a lot more 17-70's that were weather sealed without the extra expense of * quality glass as an all around lens than they would DA* 85mm lenses to the few people out there wanting that prime.

Let's at least be honest and admit the reason Pentax makes so few high end lenses is because so few people want them bad enough to slap their charge card down. If there was an overwhelming demand for them - versus the lenses like the 18-55, 17-70, 50-200, 55-300, etc - then that's where they'd be focusing their manufacturing efforts. High end primes comprise a very small percentage of total lenses sold for the particular camera platform we're talking about. The people who want them want them real bad, but they aren't the majority.

If you think about it for a moment, and could somehow measure what is on every K10 and now K20 out there, day in and day out... how do you think the prime market compares to the zooms as far as which gets the greatest time mounted to the front of those cameras? I think zooms are way ahead by far - meaning a greater potential market.

When it gets right down to it, companies like Tamron and Sigma aren't exactly going broke because they're losing their shirt to Pentax, Nikon, Canon, etc owners buying high end primes instead.

If Pentax is looking to distinguish itself in one or more places, an affordable weatherproof DSLR with affordable weatherproof lenses that Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc can't offer or match is not a bad place to start. The SUV market has already figured that one out... most 4x4's never leave the asphalt and spend their entire existance in large cities. And they've been selling them as fast as they can make them for years now.

06-11-2008, 10:40 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nowhere, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 654
QuoteOriginally posted by Geekybiker Quote
I'm mostly concerned about its sharpness wide open. With a f4 max, Ill be there frequently. I'm really hoping its a longer version of the 16-45.
My guess is that it will replace the 16-45. Would not surprise me if the 16-45 is taken out of production. Really. As far as I understand, Pentax already have trouble with keeping up to the demands of lenses in their factories, I think they have pretty much reached and perhaps passed the limit of what they can get out of the factories. They have recently released a bunch of different lenses and some are not made regulary anymore, only when the demand/preorders is high enough. So I personally, and i have no real base on it. Is that they will take 16-45 out of production when the first three or so batches are out.
06-11-2008, 12:33 PM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Owego, NY
Posts: 976
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Frankly, I am surprised that there are so many third party glass users on what is supposed to be a Pentax forum, since the best reason to shoot Pentax is the lenses, and if you aren't going to use Pentax glass, it really doesn't matter whose body you shoot with, and there are a lot of cameras out there that are way better performing than anything Pentax has on the market, albeit at a somewhat higher cost.
Maybe that was the case in the past, but in the past few years, the advantage definately lies within Pentax's bodies, especially in the price ranges they live in. Yes, other manufacturers provides bodies superior to those in Pentax's lineup, but at FAR greater prices.

When I was shopping for a new camera last year, I was looking in the sub-$1000 price range. Anything Canon offered was massively crippled (what, no spot metering in a $700-800 body with the XTi? Are you kidding me?), and Nikon was out of the question for philosophical/idealogical reasons (NEF encryption fiasco and Nikon's "we're doing this for your own good, trust us" response). Pentax won and I became a K10D owner.

What's so great about Pentax glass? Yes, it used to be excellent and blew away the third-parties, but with cost reduction efforts such as the move to manufacturing lenses in Vietnam, Pentax glass quality has plummeted - Look at the dismal showing the DA* 16-50 has put forth in the quality control arena.

Meanwhile, thanks to DSLRs being far less forgiving than film cameras of bad optics, the third-party manufacturers have shaped up. I had an old Sigma 28-200mm zoom lens with a Pentax mount. I never realized how bad that glass was until I mounted it to my K10D. Modern Sigma and Tamron glass is a far different story. The Tamron 70-300 and Sigma 70-300 are so well liked (with a few known deficiencies but no showstoppers) that the question rarely is "Should I get a 70-300", but "Which one, Sigma or Tamron?". BTW, Pentax also makes a 75-300 lens and I have yet to see a positive review of it.

Similarly, the Sigma 17-70 is a popular lens with a very well known track record. In order to compete against it with a slower, less versatile, and more expensive lens (Even after a discount from MSRP to street price, it's highly unlikely to come within $75-100 of the Sigma), Pentax has to offer vastly improved quality control and IQ. The problem is - The Sigma's IQ is already considered excellent, and Pentax's quality control reputation lately has not been very good.
06-11-2008, 07:41 PM   #37
Veteran Member
TourDeForce's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 512
QuoteOriginally posted by Entropy Quote
Maybe that was the case in the past, but in the past few years, the advantage definately lies within Pentax's bodies, especially in the price ranges they live in. Yes, other manufacturers provides bodies superior to those in Pentax's lineup, but at FAR greater prices.

What's so great about Pentax glass? Yes, it used to be excellent and blew away the third-parties, but with cost reduction efforts such as the move to manufacturing lenses in Vietnam, Pentax glass quality has plummeted - Look at the dismal showing the DA* 16-50 has put forth in the quality control arena.

Meanwhile, thanks to DSLRs being far less forgiving than film cameras of bad optics, the third-party manufacturers have shaped up. ... The Tamron 70-300 and Sigma 70-300 are so well liked (with a few known deficiencies but no showstoppers) that the question rarely is "Should I get a 70-300", but "Which one, Sigma or Tamron?". BTW, Pentax also makes a 75-300 lens and I have yet to see a positive review of it.

Similarly, the Sigma 17-70 is a popular lens with a very well known track record. In order to compete against it with a slower, less versatile, and more expensive lens (Even after a discount from MSRP to street price, it's highly unlikely to come within $75-100 of the Sigma), Pentax has to offer vastly improved quality control and IQ. The problem is - The Sigma's IQ is already considered excellent, and Pentax's quality control reputation lately has not been very good.
I can't argue with any of that. But again, some Sigma lenses suffer from an odd yellow cast. I even saw one review with a comparison picture that showed this OBVIOUS flaw, but not one word was said of it. The reviewer simply raved about the resolution. Well, enjoy your resolution but please remember my car is red, not orange.

Point is; lens buying for a Pentax is not so simple as 'buy the latest & greatest'. Some of the best Pentax glass EVER is long out of production and there is little hope it will ever be matched again. Third party makers are stepping up, but you do have to research to get the 'right one'.

Maybe with the dollar falling the way it is, Pentax can open a lens plant in the States. I'd bet us yanks could build one helluva nice bit of kit.
06-11-2008, 08:00 PM   #38
Veteran Member
volosong's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Antelope Valley, SoCal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 663
If the new Pentax DA 17-70/4 is better than the DA* 16-50/2.8 wide open, which won't be all that hard to do, I'll probably get one. It will make a good twin with the DA* 60-250/4 lens. We all know that Pentax makes fantastic telephoto zooms. Just not so good wide-angle zooms.

06-11-2008, 08:29 PM   #39
Veteran Member
AndrewG NY's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chappaqua, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 679
QuoteOriginally posted by volosong Quote
We all know that Pentax makes fantastic telephoto zooms. Just not so good wide-angle zooms.
Really? Who else offers anything that really bests the DA 16-45 or DA 12-24? These offerings seem quite sound to me.

Canon 10-22 and Sigma 10-20 are decent enough, but more competitive than superior. No need to compare to Tokina's 12-24 as it's essentially the same optic. Nikon has a nice 12-24 as well but at quite a price premium. Other lenses like the Sigma 17-70 have relative strengths and weaknesses but nothing is standing head & shoulders above. Canon's 17-40L is supposedly good but considerably pricier, and their 17-85 isn't all that appealing. Which of Nikon's mid-level wide-angle zooms would you award the crown?

I would say that Pentax's wide angle glass is more competitive than their telephoto glass.
06-11-2008, 10:21 PM   #40
Veteran Member
Miserere's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by AndrewG NY Quote
I would say that Pentax's wide angle glass is more competitive than their telephoto glass.
You mean Pentax builds telephotos!?!?!?

Oh yeah...! Sorry, I thought it was 2007

Volosong, Pentax has always had awesome primes, at any focal length, and built great f/4 zooms. Just ask anyone who has a 24-50mm f/4, or a 70-210mm f/4. I just received an old-ass M 80-200mm f/4.5, and it's amazing how good it is optically. And it wasn't even meant to be a top-of-the-line lens back then.

I have no doubt the 17-70mm will be a good lens. Whether that's enough for it to sell well is a different matter.
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!
da*, gain, k-mount, pentax lens, sigma, slr lens, tele
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:08 PM. | 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