Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-13-2009, 01:46 PM   #166
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by Alfisti Quote
Imagine a 100-400 f/4-5.6, that's where the REAL gap in our line up is. They'd sell them by the truck load.
I'd be right behind the truck, waiting for one to fall off. That'll be a nice lens to have indeed.

01-13-2009, 01:49 PM   #167
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 818
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
I can see your point and have some smphathy. But Pentax cannot exist, charging that much. It is that simple.
With all due respect, how do you know pentax can't exist charging that much?
01-13-2009, 02:17 PM   #168
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Alfisti Quote
Alrighty, instead of sounding negative let's think positive.

Imagine a 100-400 f/4-5.6, that's where the REAL gap in our line up is. They'd sell them by the truck load.
Agreed! But as that is not in sight, I got a Bigma...

Ben
01-13-2009, 02:19 PM   #169
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Votesh Quote
With all due respect, how do you know pentax can't exist charging that much?
Because their production cost are higher (due to the much smaller production run of each lens) and add to that the cost for the completely new development of the 60-250, whereas the 70-200L has been around for many years. Also, the 60-250 is a more complex lens, with a considerably higher zoom ratio (see above). If they would sell the 60-250 for the price of Canon's 70-200 they'ld loos too much money with every lens sold. And lenses are where the money is earned!

Ben

01-13-2009, 02:21 PM   #170
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
That is all true - but why stopped Pentax then making the wonderful FA 80-200? I never ever felt the urge for the 50-135mm and use my Sigma 70-200/2.8 all the time, very often near or at the long end. Pentax could have made the old lens in new DA disguise (quite like the DA 200/2.8) and all would have been happy.

To a degree I suspect Pentax is once more on the "make everything smaller" trip of the 1970s and that rules out really fast lenses of longer focal length...

Ben
digital has been around for a very short time compared to film

the 70-200 zoom range has been around since the stone ages,

if you were a zoom user during the film era

and you used a 70-200

then the pentax 50-135 would have been the ideal lens for you!

because a 70-200 = 105 - 300, so if you shoot on the long end, then had this been film, you would have probably owned a 300mm prime.

its all relative

01-13-2009, 02:22 PM   #171
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by ryan s Quote
[Devil's Advocate]

Pretty much every Canon owner I know has a 70-200/4. I don't understand why the Pentax 60-250 doesn't make sense. Street value of the P will be less than MSRP (obviously)...but it's "not wide enough and not long enough"? It's both wider and longer than the Canon, which is the Canon telephoto I see used the most.

What am I missing? Price isn't finalized...we don't have to pay for IS...so why not compare the 60-250 to the 70-200/4 IS version at $1024 (pre-rebate at B&H)? It weighs 1.7 lb (760 g) but is shorter than the Pentax.

The only reason I'd see for an f/2.8 lens would be to stop down to f/4. If this Pentax is sharp and has well-controlled CA wide open there'd be no point to a f/2.8 version which would be bigger and heavier...but the f/4 is already too big n heavy ZOMG.
For me, that lens really makes sense, much more then some other offerings by Pentax. Everything you write seems valid from my point of view, except the last: I use my lenses fully open, whenever I need it. And in my experience this is still much better (even including some IQ loss), than having a blurred image, whether it be due to camera shake or subject movement.

Ben
01-13-2009, 02:28 PM   #172
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
digital has been around for a very short time compared to film

the 70-200 zoom range has been around since the stone ages,

if you were a zoom user during the film era

and you used a 70-200

then the pentax 50-135 would have been the ideal lens for you!

because a 70-200 = 105 - 300, so if you shoot on the long end, then had this been film, you would have probably owned a 300mm prime.

its all relative

That is the theory. In practice I use my 70-200 all the time over its whole range, preferably at the longer end. And ofcourse I have the longer primes (the last count gave me 4x 300mm, 2x400mm and 3x 500mm and a 600 and a 1000mm lens), too, some from film days, some more recent. I know, it is a personal matter/preference. But I know a lot of photogs, who consider their 70-200 their daily "bread-and-butter" lens (not in the studio...)

Ben
01-13-2009, 03:36 PM   #173
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
and you used a 70-200

then the pentax 50-135 would have been the ideal lens for you!

because a 70-200 = 105 - 300, so if you shoot on the long end, then had this been film, you would have probably owned a 300mm prime.

its all relative

Many will disagree but i have a theory on this. Most of us like a wide lens for obvious reasons, most can use moderate lengths too ... get past about 100mm and suddenly we start wanting more, more, more. Those film users resigned to using an f/4 200mm lens, I suspect many would have killed for a 300/4 in the same size and weight and cost. With APS-C they essentially have it.

Now, 200 is still 200 for a lot of users, it should be 135 but it's not ... they want the reach.

01-13-2009, 05:18 PM   #174
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 379
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
a 5D cost what a 5D Mkii costs now 4 years ago

imagine what will happen within 2-3 years

also imagine a consumer level FF chip, kind of like what pentax did with the K-M, lets take ancient technology, update the software and jam it into the most simple body we can think of, and then change people next to nothing for it.

unlike Pentax, Canon and Nikon already have the ground work to make this easily happen.

look back 2-3 years and check out the prices of entry level D40 (non X) and the Canon Rebel 300, then factor in inflation, and the exchange rate dump, and you will see that FF consumer level cameras are not pipe dreams.
Not only is a consumer full-frame a pipe dream, it's a solution in search of a problem. I know 4 people who bought entry-level DSLRs in the last year (3xDigiRebels, 1xD40), and not a single one of them even knows what "Full-Frame" means, or what a "crop-factor" is. And this is the biggest share of the DSLR market. FF will not happen for consumer DSLRs because it's not wanted or needed, and a smaller sensor will ALWAYS be cheaper and allow a smaller and less expensive body. Heck, in my opinion most DSLR buyers would be better off with a point-and-shoot, but they don't even know it - a DSLR is just the latest shiney toy to peddle to consumers!
01-13-2009, 08:43 PM   #175
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by GaryM Quote
Not only is a consumer full-frame a pipe dream, it's a solution in search of a problem. I know 4 people who bought entry-level DSLRs in the last year (3xDigiRebels, 1xD40), and not a single one of them even knows what "Full-Frame" means, or what a "crop-factor" is. And this is the biggest share of the DSLR market. FF will not happen for consumer DSLRs because it's not wanted or needed, and a smaller sensor will ALWAYS be cheaper and allow a smaller and less expensive body. Heck, in my opinion most DSLR buyers would be better off with a point-and-shoot, but they don't even know it - a DSLR is just the latest shiney toy to peddle to consumers!
hey, to you, the glass is half empty, to me, its half full.

its not a matter of whether the public wants, its a matter of whether they can do it or not, by your logic everyone should have been happy with 6MP technology and forget about it.

*tip hat

Last edited by Gooshin; 01-13-2009 at 08:50 PM.
01-13-2009, 10:53 PM   #176
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 818
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
Because their production cost are higher (due to the much smaller production run of each lens) and add to that the cost for the completely new development of the 60-250, whereas the 70-200L has been around for many years. Also, the 60-250 is a more complex lens, with a considerably higher zoom ratio (see above). If they would sell the 60-250 for the price of Canon's 70-200 they'ld loos too much money with every lens sold. And lenses are where the money is earned!

Ben
Sorry, I thought you were talking about rereleasing the 80-200mm being financially infeasible as compared to producing the new 60-250mm. After rereading I realize what you were saying.
01-13-2009, 11:39 PM   #177
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
QuoteOriginally posted by Alfisti Quote
a) because the price is so absurd for an f/4 lens

b) You can't do a Roland and say "well all lenses are IS now so Pentax is great" then say "well you need to compare the non-IS Pentax lens to an IS Canon lens" ... it's either/or.

c) It's an absolute friggin MONSTER lens, it's not a walk around lens at all, you can't just chuck it in your bag.
The MSRP is high, yes. We don't know the street price yet though. Hell...someone bought an EX+ K10D from KEH of all places for $340 the other day! I paid $300 more a year ago, and I know people paid $300 more than I did when it first came out in 06.

Think about IS from the Canon side. To have a similarly equipped kit, they would have to buy the IS version. It's apples-to-apples in my mind.

That last point leads me to:
QuoteOriginally posted by Alfisti Quote
Imagine a 100-400 f/4-5.6, that's where the REAL gap in our line up is. They'd sell them by the truck load.
That's a walk-around lens? It's a 70-200/4 + 25% in every dimension. As I said when I put some fuel on the fire earlier today, people bitch about this big upcoming DA*...then bitch about wanting an f/2.8 version. I didn't know we could have some cake and eat it...

I understand the extra reach, believe that (my longest FL is 320mm and I use it). And this leads me to:
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
digital has been around for a very short time compared to film
...

its all relative
We cannot forget that Pentax is thinking "in 35mm terms" with regards to the crop factor, ladies and gentlemen. It's a 90-375 with the crop factor, pretty close to a 100-400 length.

Of course...it just "happens" to be longer and wider than the common Canon
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
For me, that lens really makes sense, much more then some other offerings by Pentax. Everything you write seems valid from my point of view, except the last: I use my lenses fully open, whenever I need it. And in my experience this is still much better (even including some IQ loss), than having a blurred image, whether it be due to camera shake or subject movement.

Ben
I was speaking more toward my personal experiences...stop down more and it's harder to miss a shot due to narrow depth of field
01-14-2009, 04:31 AM   #178
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by ryan s Quote
It's a 90-375 with the crop factor, pretty close to a 100-400 length.
That's just not true. 100mm reach is 100mm reach no matter on what sensor.

You shouldn't care what someone else's field of view with a different (FF) sensor's is. Is doesn't increase the magnification you are getting. Someone with a FF could claim to get 400mm reach with a 266mm lens as well but just throwing (cropping) the image borders away (those that need to be added to turn an APS-C sensor to a FF one).

Just because you can express a focal length in terms of another format (to give the same field of view), doesn't increase the magnification the lens is giving you. Don't forget the same field of view on a FF has more resolution (assuming the same pixel density) compared to APS-C.

It is as if someone sold you a FF camera with a 266 lens and by castrating the sensor to only spit out APS-C format crops he now claims he sold you a 400mm lens. I wouldn't believe him.
01-14-2009, 06:43 AM   #179
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
QuoteOriginally posted by ryan s Quote
That's a walk-around lens? It's a 70-200/4 + 25% in every dimension. As I said when I put some fuel on the fire earlier today, people bitch about this big upcoming DA*...then bitch about wanting an f/2.8 version. I didn't know we could have some cake and eat it...
No it's not a walk around lens but it's worth toting a tripod because you have 400mm to play with
01-14-2009, 06:53 AM   #180
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by ryan s Quote
The MSRP is high, yes. We don't know the street price yet though. Hell...someone bought an EX+ K10D from KEH of all places for $340 the other day! I paid $300 more a year ago, and I know people paid $300 more than I did when it first came out in 06.

Think about IS from the Canon side. To have a similarly equipped kit, they would have to buy the IS version. It's apples-to-apples in my mind.

That last point leads me to:

That's a walk-around lens? It's a 70-200/4 + 25% in every dimension. As I said when I put some fuel on the fire earlier today, people bitch about this big upcoming DA*...then bitch about wanting an f/2.8 version. I didn't know we could have some cake and eat it...

I understand the extra reach, believe that (my longest FL is 320mm and I use it). And this leads me to:

We cannot forget that Pentax is thinking "in 35mm terms" with regards to the crop factor, ladies and gentlemen. It's a 90-375 with the crop factor, pretty close to a 100-400 length.

Of course...it just "happens" to be longer and wider than the common Canon

I was speaking more toward my personal experiences...stop down more and it's harder to miss a shot due to narrow depth of field
I realize that even Pentax is partially to blame for the misunderstanding that a 300mm lens is like 400mm lens on the dSLR. However, it only applies to the FOV and not the focal length.
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!
examples, k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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 DA*50-135?" or "The DA*50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?" Douglas_of_Sweden Post Your Photos! 4 08-13-2008 06:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:21 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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