"Lenses I Just Don't *Get"

Miserere · 01-12-2009, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

For a lens that is only f/4 and is so big and so expensive, it seems odd to me that so many people have been waiting for it so eagerly.

I think people were eagerly awaiting it back when they thought it might cost $700-900. With this launch price, I'm afraid many potential buyers might opt for a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 + Tamron 1.4x TC combo, which will cost under $850. Also, given the current economic climate, I think Pentax is going to have stockpiles of this lens filling the back of its warehouse because nobody will be able to afford it.

séamuis · 01-12-2009, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Miserere

Errr.... I use the verb to get, not in the sense to acquire, but in the sense intended by the original poster, which was to understand. I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to or not. If you did understand what I was saying, I'll have you know that the DA* 60-250 was announced a looooong time ago, and I didn't understand it back then either, even though we didn't know it's price. Next year, when it's been selling for a while (if indeed anybody is willing to pay $1400 for it), I still won't understand it. It's the specs and price that determine whether I get a lens or not. For example, if I told you Pentax were releasing a 113-184mm f/5.9 zoom for $995, wouldn't you scratch your head and say "I don't get it..."? Same thing for me with the DA* 60-250.

To reply to the 2nd part of your question, it is a heavy lens because it weighs 1230g (2 lbs 11.4 oz) with hood and tripod mount. I used "assume" because I haven't actually held it, but based on the weight of my other lenses and how they feel on my K10D, I can assume it will feel heavy, on top of it actually being heavy.

However, I really hope a lot of people get, and get, this lens so Pentax can profit from all their R&D investment. If it's good for Pentax, it's good for me.

I was referring to get as in to understand, and I know how long the 60-250 has been in the pipeline. but specs aside, I still don't understand how without having actually held the lens that you can say its too heavy, and who is to say it wont change (again) before its released, and maybe be lighter? is the tripod mount removable? will it be upon release? the price point I can understand to an extent, but it is a * lens and we don't know how good the optics may or may not be.

Gooshin · 01-12-2009, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

I don't know, I feel just like Miserere does on the 60-250. For a lens that is only f/4 and is so big and so expensive, it seems odd to me that so many people have been waiting for it so eagerly. If you're OK with big and expensive, why not the 50-135/2.8 or a 70-200/2.8 and get more speed while you're at it? If you don't care so much about speed, why not save a lot of size & money and get the 55-300? Are people expecting it to be *that* much better in terms of sharpness or whatever else? Or is the focal length range just so perfect for some application, and f/4 just good enough, to make it that desirable? Outdoor sports, maybe?

its definetly an oddball..

but if the Canon 70-200 L F4 is an indicator, it should be ridiculously sharp

on the other hand, the canon lens is tiny, this thing is not.

Blue · 01-12-2009, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

its definetly an oddball..

but if the Canon 70-200 L F4 is an indicator, it should be ridiculously sharp

on the other hand, the canon lens is tiny, this thing is not.

Getting rid of 10mm on the wide end and 50mm on the long end helped them get the size down on the canon lens.

Gooshin · 01-12-2009, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Blue

Getting rid of 10mm on the wide end and 50mm on the long end helped them get the size down on the canon lens.

in my experience raw lens specifications and ultimate lens size dont always correlate

Blue · 01-12-2009, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

in my experience raw lens specifications and ultimate lens size dont always correlate

That's why I said it "helped" get the size down.

**rparmar** · 01-12-2009, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Blue

Why would you rate it harder than the 55-300mm?

Have you seen the relative prices? I'm with Mis on this one.

**Sailor** · 01-12-2009, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by NaClH2O

I don't think there is a lens I don't "get" in the sense that I understand why it was made, I originally thought the FA 20-35 was a "dumb" lens till I tried a friend's. Then I immediately went out and got my own, probably the best "garden" lens I own. There are a lot of lenses I won't own, I'm not a fan of super zooms, but I "get" them, they are made for people who, for one reason or another don't want to change lenses. I think that the FA31 is way overpriced even tho I own it's two "brothers" the FA43 and the FA77, but I understand why it is made. I understand that many lust after the FA* 85 1.4 but I have no need for it nor do I want it, but it is still considered by many to be the "perfect" portrait lens. I don't have a screwmount adapter, but I do understand why people like them.

NaCl(lenses, I "get". It's people I don't understand)H2O

Well said, my friend. I love my DA Limited's, my FA 35/2, my DFA 100/2.8 and A* 85/1.4, but I don't "get" them when I'm on Cut Time's deck at 20 degrees of heel in 25 kts of wind and 4-5 foot seas. That's when my DA 18-250 (with all it's limitations) is just the ticket.

Jer

Alfisti · 01-12-2009, 07:57 PM

I mentioned it in the 60-250 thread, i just don't get it. Not wide, not long, not fast, big, heavy and scary expensive.

Alfisti · 01-12-2009, 07:57 PM

I mentioned it in the 60-250 thread, i just don't get it. Not wide, not long, not fast, big, heavy and scary expensive.

You can buy a 40D and a 70-200/4 for the same price and at least know the AF will lock on a moving target

Sorry, sorry i know .. i jest i jest.

Igilligan · 01-12-2009, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Alfisti

I mentioned it in the 60-250 thread, i just don't get it. Not wide, not long, not fast, big, heavy and scary expensive.

You can buy a 40D and a 70-200/4 for the same price and at least know the AF will lock on a moving target

Sorry, sorry i know .. i jest i jest.

And I laughed to hide my tears...

. .
. .
.
.
. .
_________ My Puddle of tears

^

Blue · 01-12-2009, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

Have you seen the relative prices? I'm with Mis on this one.

Since, I have the 55-300mm, I am aware of the price difference. I was referring to the comment about it not being wide enough on the wide end and not long enough on the long end. Sure its bigger and heavier but its also alot faster on the long end. I will pass on this lens and get a long prime down the stretch. In the mean time, I'll keep using my old A 400mm f5.6 and the 55-300mm.

Originally posted by Miserere

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the one Pentax lens I don't get: DA* 60-250mm f/4.

On digital it's not wide enough on the short end, not long enough on the long end, and it's not that fast. It's also (apparently) quite big and heavy. And let's not forget it costs an arm and a leg.

I, personaly, don't get it.

Ben_Edict · 01-13-2009, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by Alfisti

I mentioned it in the 60-250 thread, i just don't get it. Not wide, not long, not fast, big, heavy and scary expensive.

It is one stop faster than the 55-300 and it is robustly made. Nobody can say for sure yet, how its image quality will be - but if the reports of "beta" users are to be trusted it is very sharp wide open. Had it been available a year ago, I would certainly have bought it.

The price seems o.k. to me. You never pay the actual list price. And (I think we already had a similar discussion), to compare the ubiquos 70-200/4 L is simply far festched: this is an old lens, which has seen a long production run, a commodity lens. Taken the production run and the sheer absolute numbers for Canon into account, it has to be much cheaper, than the brand new Pentax. Also, I don't know about the inner workings of the 60-250 (zoom ratio 4.2 compared to the Canon's 2.9), but it sure is a much more complicated construction, than the comparetively simple 70-200.

The question, that bothers me much more is, why Pentax does not deliver a fast 70-200/2.8. This is still a widely acknowledged and used standard lens type.

Ben

m8o · 01-13-2009, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Ben_Edict

The question, that bothers me much more is, why Pentax does not deliver a fast 70-200/2.8. This is still a widely acknowledged and used standard lens type.

And it has been answered even more... the 50-135 on a 1.5x crop sensor, for the equiv FOV as the 75-200. That is the pentax strategy in delivering lenses.

jsherman999 · 01-13-2009, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Ben_Edict

The question, that bothers me much more is, why Pentax does not deliver a fast 70-200/2.8. This is still a widely acknowledged and used standard lens type.

Ben

Possibly because both Tamron and Sigma offer good ones at pretty good prices, and it would be tough for Pentax to make money there - unless they make it a DA*, and go crazy with the quality so as to distinguish it from the others, I guess.

But then, again, to make money after doing that it would be a $1200 lens anyway.

.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge	MRRiley	Post Your Photos!	27	02-21-2010 08:26 PM
For Sale - Sold: 2 18-55mm kit lenses ("L" and "AL II" version)	dgaies	Sold Items	5	12-28-2009 07:58 AM
K-7 and metering with "K" and "M" lenses	NaClH2O	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	07-18-2009 09:00 PM
Original "K" and "M" lenses	wlank	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	08-31-2008 11:00 AM
"Hunger for a DA50-135?" or "The DA50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?"	Douglas_of_Sweden	Post Your Photos!	4	08-13-2008 06:09 AM

01-12-2009, 02:58 PM	#136
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella For a lens that is only f/4 and is so big and so expensive, it seems odd to me that so many people have been waiting for it so eagerly. I think people were eagerly awaiting it back when they thought it might cost $700-900. With this launch price, I'm afraid many potential buyers might opt for a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 + Tamron 1.4x TC combo, which will cost under $850. Also, given the current economic climate, I think Pentax is going to have stockpiles of this lens filling the back of its warehouse because nobody will be able to afford it.

01-12-2009, 03:04 PM	#137
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by Miserere Errr.... I use the verb to get, not in the sense to acquire, but in the sense intended by the original poster, which was to understand. I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to or not. If you did understand what I was saying, I'll have you know that the DA* 60-250 was announced a looooong time ago, and I didn't understand it back then either, even though we didn't know it's price. Next year, when it's been selling for a while (if indeed anybody is willing to pay $1400 for it), I still won't understand it. It's the specs and price that determine whether I get a lens or not. For example, if I told you Pentax were releasing a 113-184mm f/5.9 zoom for $995, wouldn't you scratch your head and say "I don't get it..."? Same thing for me with the DA* 60-250. To reply to the 2nd part of your question, it is a heavy lens because it weighs 1230g (2 lbs 11.4 oz) with hood and tripod mount. I used "assume" because I haven't actually held it, but based on the weight of my other lenses and how they feel on my K10D, I can assume it will feel heavy, on top of it actually being heavy. However, I really hope a lot of people get, and get, this lens so Pentax can profit from all their R&D investment. If it's good for Pentax, it's good for me. I was referring to get as in to understand, and I know how long the 60-250 has been in the pipeline. but specs aside, I still don't understand how without having actually held the lens that you can say its too heavy, and who is to say it wont change (again) before its released, and maybe be lighter? is the tripod mount removable? will it be upon release? the price point I can understand to an extent, but it is a * lens and we don't know how good the optics may or may not be.

01-12-2009, 03:07 PM	#138
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella I don't know, I feel just like Miserere does on the 60-250. For a lens that is only f/4 and is so big and so expensive, it seems odd to me that so many people have been waiting for it so eagerly. If you're OK with big and expensive, why not the 50-135/2.8 or a 70-200/2.8 and get more speed while you're at it? If you don't care so much about speed, why not save a lot of size & money and get the 55-300? Are people expecting it to be that much better in terms of sharpness or whatever else? Or is the focal length range just so perfect for some application, and f/4 just good enough, to make it that desirable? Outdoor sports, maybe? its definetly an oddball.. but if the Canon 70-200 L F4 is an indicator, it should be ridiculously sharp on the other hand, the canon lens is tiny, this thing is not.

01-12-2009, 03:10 PM	#139
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Gooshin its definetly an oddball.. but if the Canon 70-200 L F4 is an indicator, it should be ridiculously sharp on the other hand, the canon lens is tiny, this thing is not. Getting rid of 10mm on the wide end and 50mm on the long end helped them get the size down on the canon lens.

01-12-2009, 03:20 PM	#140
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by Blue Getting rid of 10mm on the wide end and 50mm on the long end helped them get the size down on the canon lens. in my experience raw lens specifications and ultimate lens size dont always correlate

01-12-2009, 03:36 PM	#141
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Gooshin in my experience raw lens specifications and ultimate lens size dont always correlate That's why I said it "helped" get the size down.

01-12-2009, 05:42 PM	#142
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by Blue Why would you rate it harder than the 55-300mm? Have you seen the relative prices? I'm with Mis on this one.

01-12-2009, 06:14 PM	#143
Sailor Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Coastal Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 26,205	Originally posted by NaClH2O I don't think there is a lens I don't "get" in the sense that I understand why it was made, I originally thought the FA 20-35 was a "dumb" lens till I tried a friend's. Then I immediately went out and got my own, probably the best "garden" lens I own. There are a lot of lenses I won't own, I'm not a fan of super zooms, but I "get" them, they are made for people who, for one reason or another don't want to change lenses. I think that the FA31 is way overpriced even tho I own it's two "brothers" the FA43 and the FA77, but I understand why it is made. I understand that many lust after the FA* 85 1.4 but I have no need for it nor do I want it, but it is still considered by many to be the "perfect" portrait lens. I don't have a screwmount adapter, but I do understand why people like them. NaCl(lenses, I "get". It's people I don't understand)H2O Well said, my friend. I love my DA Limited's, my FA 35/2, my DFA 100/2.8 and A* 85/1.4, but I don't "get" them when I'm on Cut Time's deck at 20 degrees of heel in 25 kts of wind and 4-5 foot seas. That's when my DA 18-250 (with all it's limitations) is just the ticket. Jer

01-12-2009, 07:57 PM	#144
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	I mentioned it in the 60-250 thread, i just don't get it. Not wide, not long, not fast, big, heavy and scary expensive.

01-12-2009, 07:57 PM	#145
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	I mentioned it in the 60-250 thread, i just don't get it. Not wide, not long, not fast, big, heavy and scary expensive. You can buy a 40D and a 70-200/4 for the same price and at least know the AF will lock on a moving target Sorry, sorry i know .. i jest i jest.

01-12-2009, 08:33 PM	#146
Igilligan Guest	Originally posted by Alfisti I mentioned it in the 60-250 thread, i just don't get it. Not wide, not long, not fast, big, heavy and scary expensive. You can buy a 40D and a 70-200/4 for the same price and at least know the AF will lock on a moving target Sorry, sorry i know .. i jest i jest. And I laughed to hide my tears... . . . . . . . . _________ My Puddle of tears ^

01-12-2009, 08:53 PM	#147
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by rparmar Have you seen the relative prices? I'm with Mis on this one. Since, I have the 55-300mm, I am aware of the price difference. I was referring to the comment about it not being wide enough on the wide end and not long enough on the long end. Sure its bigger and heavier but its also alot faster on the long end. I will pass on this lens and get a long prime down the stretch. In the mean time, I'll keep using my old A 400mm f5.6 and the 55-300mm. Originally posted by Miserere I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the one Pentax lens I don't get: DA* 60-250mm f/4. On digital it's not wide enough on the short end, not long enough on the long end, and it's not that fast. It's also (apparently) quite big and heavy. And let's not forget it costs an arm and a leg. I, personaly, don't get it.

01-13-2009, 03:11 AM	#148
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by Alfisti I mentioned it in the 60-250 thread, i just don't get it. Not wide, not long, not fast, big, heavy and scary expensive. It is one stop faster than the 55-300 and it is robustly made. Nobody can say for sure yet, how its image quality will be - but if the reports of "beta" users are to be trusted it is very sharp wide open. Had it been available a year ago, I would certainly have bought it. The price seems o.k. to me. You never pay the actual list price. And (I think we already had a similar discussion), to compare the ubiquos 70-200/4 L is simply far festched: this is an old lens, which has seen a long production run, a commodity lens. Taken the production run and the sheer absolute numbers for Canon into account, it has to be much cheaper, than the brand new Pentax. Also, I don't know about the inner workings of the 60-250 (zoom ratio 4.2 compared to the Canon's 2.9), but it sure is a much more complicated construction, than the comparetively simple 70-200. The question, that bothers me much more is, why Pentax does not deliver a fast 70-200/2.8. This is still a widely acknowledged and used standard lens type. Ben

01-13-2009, 06:55 AM	#149
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Originally posted by Ben_Edict The question, that bothers me much more is, why Pentax does not deliver a fast 70-200/2.8. This is still a widely acknowledged and used standard lens type. And it has been answered even more... the 50-135 on a 1.5x crop sensor, for the equiv FOV as the 75-200. That is the pentax strategy in delivering lenses.

01-13-2009, 08:12 AM	#150
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ben_Edict The question, that bothers me much more is, why Pentax does not deliver a fast 70-200/2.8. This is still a widely acknowledged and used standard lens type. Ben Possibly because both Tamron and Sigma offer good ones at pretty good prices, and it would be tough for Pentax to make money there - unless they make it a DA*, and go crazy with the quality so as to distinguish it from the others, I guess. But then, again, to make money after doing that it would be a $1200 lens anyway. .