[asdf]

Yes, a wide angle weather sealed prime would be good and unique--Canon's weather sealed wide offerings are the wide L zooms.

Nikon releases 24mm f/1.4 G ED fast wideangle lens: Digital Photography Review

Someone read our minds, but it wasn't Pentax.

EDIT2: Apparently, so did Canon in '08...

---

Last edited by asdf; 02-10-2010 at 07:02 AM.

[filorp]

Pentax is for amatour who will sooner or later leave the ship for 24f1.4, 35f1.4, 135f1.8.... etc. sad but true...

[deadwolfbones]

Pentax is for amatour who will sooner or later leave the ship for 24f1.4, 35f1.4, 135f1.8.... etc. sad but true...

[Fl_Gulfer]

DA* 250-600mm f/5,6. Under 5k...... FA* 200 f4 Macro Under 2k

[er1kksen]

Pentax is for amatour who will sooner or later leave the ship for 24f1.4, 35f1.4, 135f1.8.... etc. sad but true...

Very much so. Everyone KNOWS you need a 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, and 135mm f1.8 to be a pro. I mean, how could you shoot architecture without those three lenses? Or pro sports? Just can't be done. Everyone knows that.

[er1kksen]

Incidentally, to be a Professional Pro, that needs to be a Nikon 24mm f1.4, Canon 35mm 1.4 L, and Sony/Zeiss 135mm f1.8. Note that Pentax isn't anywhere in that lineup!

[filorp]

how could you shoot architecture without those three lenses? Or pro sports? Just can't be done. Everyone knows that.

its about having a choice....

[wallyb]

its about having a choice....

I'm pretty sure Pentax has more than one lens in their stable. Do you mean the choice to spend thousands of dollars on lenses that have qualities that are unneeded by 95% of photographers? If I start a camera company that makes a 24mm f/1.0 lens, does that mean all those 24mm f/1.4 lenses are obsolete? If no, then what about a 24/1.4, 35/1.4, or 135/1.8 makes Pentax's 24/2, 35/2, and 135/2.8 lenses obsolete and unusable by "pros"? Don't you realize that those lenses are primarily marketed to "gimmick photographers" who have more money than sense, considering a real professional can make a good shot with nearly any lens?

This is just like "not having an upgrade path", when referring to Pentax (and Olympus) not having full-frame models, which are some of the stupidest words ever strung together. Canon, Nikon, and Sony don't have an upgrade path to a 645-mount digital SLR, while Pentax does. 645 is bigger than 135, so it's got to be better for all situations by every photographer ever, right?

[filorp]

645 is bigger than 135, so it's got to be better for all situations by every photographer ever, right?

Right!!!! thats the one of the reason im staying with pentax....

[er1kksen]

its about having a choice....

Yes, it's about having a choice. And Pentax is a perfectly legitimate choice for any Pro photographer who feels that the available glass/bodies meet their personal needs.

[filorp]

Yes, it's about having a choice. And Pentax is a perfectly legitimate choice for any Pro photographer who feels that the available glass/bodies meet their personal needs.

Sorry mate but this is just a paralogism - you can explain that way everything....

[wallyb]

Sorry mate but this is just a paralogism - you can explain that way everything....

The funny thing is that you haven't noticed saying "it's about having a choice" is paralogic as well There are plenty of choices to be had in Pentax, and a 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 or 135/1.8 lens is, for all intents and purposes, just a gimmick.

[asdf]

a 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 or 135/1.8 lens is, for all intents and purposes, just a gimmick.

Yes, a dingus that produces an image on a surface, if light is let in through one of its sides.

[er1kksen]

Sorry mate but this is just a paralogism - you can explain that way everything....

Let's look at this: a Professional Photographer is one who produces photographs for purposes for which they are paid. Naturally, these photographs need to be of high quality and they need to be able to "get the shot." Thus, equipment is required that facilitates their meeting of these two requirements. The equipment requirements for certain pros in certain fields will vary widely, as will their applications. Pentax, like the other SLR-makers available, produces equipment that is very capable of producing high-quality results, and depending on the specific needs of the field the pro works in it may be an available option (or even, in some cases, the best option). There may be cases where a pro finds that a different brand gives them slightly wider options or slightly higher end-quality but they may choose to work with Pentax instead because they prefer to work with their products for various reasons, and as long as the end results are satisfactory, the gear is sufficient.

I hardly see how this is less logical than once-and-for-all stating that Pentax (or any other brand) is useless for true pros because you can't get modern autofocus 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, and 135mm f1.8 lenses for K-mount. I'm not sure which fallacy to look at first... the assumption that these lenses are required for pro work and that they are the only ones important in deciding a system's relevance to pros, or the simple fact that NONE of the systems available offer this lineup. Change the 135mm to f2 and you've got two options, but still, that first assumption is the really puzzling one.

[Lowell Goudge]

I voted for a super tele.

Ideally what I would want is an SMC-FA 400mmF2.8

realistically, I don;t think I will ever get one

I would settle for the realism of a 300F2.8 AF lens, either pentax or sigma