Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-21-2008, 07:05 PM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 593
QuoteOriginally posted by KrisK10D Quote
I've been recommending Pentax DSLR bodies to folks who ask about getting digital bodies and some smarmy pain in my butt has just posted this comment...

"Pentax does not make any lenses that has a focal length of 400mm or more. Also no 70-200mm f2.8 or 80-200mm f/2.8, no 85mm, no 28-70mm f/2.8 or 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. These are some of the bread and butter lenses used by professional photographers, but Pentax does not make them, so there are holes in the pentax lens lineup which does have, from what ive read, some top glass. i hope you realize that a camera body is a small part of the equation here."

I know the 70-200 isn't out yet (or was it the 80-200?) but is he living in lala land or am I reading the list of Pentax lenses wrong?
The poster is ignorant. Just point out that these are the *old* 35mm film lenses and *not* the APS C equivalents due to their very different angles of view, so the 400mm on film is a 266mm equivalent on APS C, so the DA*300 f4 would fit the bill, the 70/80-200 f2.8 lens on 35mm film is now a 50-135 f2.8 on APS C, the 85mm on film is now a 50mm f1.4 or 70mmm f2.4 or 77mm f1.8, the 24/28-70 is now a 16-50 f2.8 on APS C.

This ignorant poster needs to realise is that the 70-200 f2.8 or 24-70 f2.8 were useful on film due to their relative angles of view were useful but these angles of view are now severely altered on APS C. A 28-70 f2.8 would be a 45-112 f2.8 on a Canon APS C DSLR due to its 1.6x crop(Pentax/Nikon is 1.53x).

Interestingly, neither Canon nor Nikon make equivalents of the 24/28-70 f2.8 or 70/80-200 f2.8 for APS C, ie the 16-50 f2.8 nor 50-135 f2.8. To me this is more of an oversight by them, than Pentax not making a 28-70 f2.8.

07-22-2008, 07:20 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Outside of Philly
Posts: 1,564
Lance - But maybe some folks (like myself) actually enjoy using the 24/28-70 on APS-C. When I was with Pentax, my walkaround lens was the Tamron 28-75mm. I hope to grab a EF 24-70mm soon to pair up with my 70-200mm f/4 IS.

And Canon does make the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, and you can buy the Tokina 16-50/50-135 for Canon.

So Canon and Pentax made different decisions regarding lenses for APC-C, but I wouldn't go around saying that a 24-70/70-200 are not as useful on a smaller sensor (as compared to a 16-50/50-135).

So I thoroughly enjoy using my 85mm f/1.8, 70-200mm f/4 IS on my crop camera. I also own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (great "normal" lens) which is also available for Pentax as is my Sigma 10-20mm (actually owned that for both mounts). But my 100-400mm isn't....

So for ME, the other brand offers something I wanted (mainly the 85 and 70-200), even though I had to give up some Pentax advantages.
07-22-2008, 05:39 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 593
QuoteOriginally posted by egordon99 Quote
Lance - But maybe some folks (like myself) actually enjoy using the 24/28-70 on APS-C. When I was with Pentax, my walkaround lens was the Tamron 28-75mm. I hope to grab a EF 24-70mm soon to pair up with my 70-200mm f/4 IS.
Yes, that's fine. I enjoy using my FA*28-70 f2.8 as well, but it still isn't a lens that equates with a film lens, ie there were no specifically designed film lenses that were 45mm - 112mm on film(Canon 1.6 crop x 28-70), so why then does this particular Canon shooter now believe that a 24-70 magically becomes a defacto standard on APS C over a more desired focal range of 16/17-50/55?? In otherwords, it is an unusual focal range and not one that *most* would use as their everyday walk around zoom. Unbelievable in his arrogance and ignorance.

QuoteQuote:
And Canon does make the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, and you can buy the Tokina 16-50/50-135 for Canon.
I was being a bit tongue in cheek on the 17-55 as the Canon shooter was being *specific* that there was no Pentax lenses in *specific* ranges and so the focal range and 17-55 is different to 16-50. A case in point about *specific* focal lengths is that he states that there is no 85mm, but somehow a 77mm f1.8 is not sufficient? I mean come on, this is the height of ignorance and arrogance!

As for the 50-135, not Canon nor Nikon make one, so why single Pentax out for not making a 70-200 which is *not* a preferred equivalent on APS C? Ridiculous. It could just as easily be said that Canon and Nikon are remiss for not making a compact 50-135 f2.8 like Pentax does.

QuoteQuote:
So Canon and Pentax made different decisions regarding lenses for APC-C, but I wouldn't go around saying that a 24-70/70-200 are not as useful on a smaller sensor (as compared to a 16-50/50-135).
Well, they aren't as useful for *most*. The reason is that if they were, then *most* would want that range and not the other. I am not saying that they are not useful, just not as useful as a 16-50 and a 50-135 and that is why Pentax made them as they are an equivalent of their film counterparts on APS C. It would bu stupid for Pentax to make a 24-70 if they are only going to sell a few compared to making a more useful focal range. This is *why* Canon made a 17-55 as it *is* a replacement for a 27-88 on film, otherwise they would have not made it.

Also, why would Pentax direct resources towards developing a 24-70 when they need their resources to make focal lengths that are more desirable?

As you say, Canon and Pentax made decisions regarding their zoom focal ranges *but* this is no reason for this particular Canon shooter to make ridiculous statements that Pentax don't make certain focal ranges that are *not* favoured by *most* on APS C. The lenses the Canon person is talking about are *35 film* camera preferred focal lengths and are *not* favoured by *most* shooters. Some, and maybe be many, but not most.

My derision toward the Canon shooter is his arrogant and ignorant belief that somehow Canon is superior for providing these lenses that Pentax don't, when in all reality it is more the fact that Canon just decided to not stop making these lenses rather than a conscious belief that they are a better focal range for APS C. That and the fact that at a later stage they developed FF DSLR's like the 1DS and 5D.

QuoteQuote:
So I thoroughly enjoy using my 85mm f/1.8, 70-200mm f/4 IS on my crop camera. I also own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (great "normal" lens) which is also available for Pentax as is my Sigma 10-20mm (actually owned that for both mounts). But my 100-400mm isn't....
And I enjoy using my FA77 f1.8 and FA*80-200 f2.8 also, but this doesn't mean that they are bets for the majority or that what the majority require or want.

QuoteQuote:
So for ME, the other brand offers something I wanted (mainly the 85 and 70-200), even though I had to give up some Pentax advantages.
That's fine, but again I point out, my dersion was against the particular Canon shooter ignorantly pointing out the *supposed* deficiencies of Pentax when in fact he is just arrogant in his beliefs. I really don't know why you weighed into this as it is a ridiculous statement by this Canon shooter. Would *you* have made this same statement? If not, then there is no reason to argue.
07-22-2008, 09:05 PM   #19
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, San Diego, Seattle
Posts: 456
some of these "film" lengths are actually very useful to some of us even on APS-C sensors. In the beginning days of DSLR, there weren't a lot of APS-C specific designs, so we used the film focal lengths.

I know that there is no longer a need for a 85 on APS-C, because "voila" we have the 50 which is like a 75 on film, and that's pretty close to 85. Because 85's were used for portraits on film, and now with APS-C, we use 50 for portraits, so no longer any need for the 85. But an unintentional result was that the 85 on APS-C, suddenly became a great headshot lens. Even my beloved FA77 is just a hair shorter than I am used to using. The Canon 85 is still a great seller, and a lens that I used quite a bit before switching to Pentax.

Remember that the 135 tele prime was a popular lens on both Canon and Nikon in the film days, and Canon still makes the 85 to cover for that length.

Another film lens from Canon was the 24-105, which, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know ('cause everyone tells me over and over and over and over and over again) is fully covered on APS-C with something like a 16 or 17-70. But the 24-105 was even more useful on APS-C than on film for me, because I could do a dynamic (moving) glamour or portrait shoot and could cover the entire APS-C range that I would for such a task without having to swap the lens. Full body or a wardrobe shot, all the way to a facial detail shot. I love my 50-135 and 16-50, but I have to swap lenses right at the point it is used by me the most (my most used range for this type of shoot is 30-90)

I took my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS to the zoo all the time. Since switching to Pentax, I've taken my 50-135 to the zoo, and I love my Pentax and its 50-135 way more than the Canon setup I had. But that 70-200 focal range on an APS-C just happened (even though it wasn't designed to, and I was such a bad and ignorant person for attempting to use it for such) work out really really good for that purpose.

So in the end, it's nice to have the choices. I find it really irritating that some narrow minded folks are trying to tell me what focal range I should be using or should not be using. I know what I like to use, I know what works for what I want or need to do.

Even though the 50-135 is a fabulous lens and it equates to a film 75-202 or whatever, I suspect that the new Tamron 70-200 will be a big seller on the Pentax, and not because so many of us are so stupid and don't understand crop factor, but because it just happens to have its own niche, yes, even on APS-C.

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!
bodies, f/2.8, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will the K-5 AF breath new life into AF TC? JohnBee Pentax K-5 17 09-28-2010 10:26 PM
Nature Breath Nitrok Post Your Photos! 19 05-01-2010 11:03 PM
Hold On...Take a Deep Breath and... benjikan Photographic Technique 3 06-21-2009 08:36 PM
OK, Deep Breath (first post for critique)... bluespearbone Post Your Photos! 15 11-24-2007 09:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:05 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