Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-20-2010, 10:17 PM   #16
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I'll bet that that 70-200 is going to be better optically than the current one. Not that the current one is bad at all, but they took a minor step backwards when they tried to go too "macro " with it. Add OS, better performance optically, and it might jump to the head of the class like the 100-300 f/4 did.

And that 85. My, my. If they do in that FL what the did at 50mm, they just may have shaken the field up a bit.

Sigma, frankly, impresses the hell out of me these days. Take a look:

Sigma 30 1.4: maybe AF accuracy problems, maybe not - if not, brilliant.
Sigma 50 1.4: Made Nikon fanboys cry like little girls.
Sigma 70 2.8 macro: Possibly sharpest macro on the market
Sigma 150 2.8 macro: Pentaxians cry like schoolgirls that this is not available. Brilliant.
Sigma 50-150 2.8 HSM II: Fast, sharp, contrast, colors beyond the rainbow.
Sigma 100-300 f4 HSM: It leads it's class. So sharp wide open you don't need f/5.

And now these new lenses... Kudos, Sigma.



.
You left out the 105mm and 180 macros. The 20, 24mm and 28mm lenses are interesting as well. Then there are those extreme fisheyes . . . 4.5mm circular and 10mm and 15mm fisheye. And of course they got the looooong primes. I think Tammy has gotten caught with their pants down and Tokina is out of the K-mount game.

Edit: Apparently they no longer make the 180mm macro in any mount.

Edit: Shiiiiit, they even build the 150mm in 4/3rds (& Nikon, Canon, and Sigma).


Last edited by Blue; 02-20-2010 at 10:27 PM.
02-20-2010, 10:20 PM   #17
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I'll bet that that 70-200 is going to be better optically than the current one. Not that the current one is bad at all, but they took a minor step backwards when they tried to go too "macro " with it. Add OS, better performance optically, and it might jump to the head of the class like the 100-300 f/4 did.

And that 85. My, my. If they do in that FL what the did at 50mm, they just may have shaken the field up a bit.

Sigma, frankly, impresses the hell out of me these days. Take a look:

Sigma 30 1.4: maybe AF accuracy problems, maybe not - if not, brilliant.
Sigma 50 1.4: Made Nikon fanboys cry like little girls.
Sigma 70 2.8 macro: Possibly sharpest macro on the market
Sigma 150 2.8 macro: Pentaxians cry like schoolgirls that this is not available. Brilliant.
Sigma 50-150 2.8 HSM II: Fast, sharp, contrast, colors beyond the rainbow.
Sigma 100-300 f4 HSM: It leads it's class. So sharp wide open you don't need f/5.

And now these new lenses... Kudos, Sigma.



.
Its true
02-20-2010, 10:22 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,713
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I'll bet that that 70-200 is going to be better optically than the current one. Not that the current one is bad at all, but they took a minor step backwards when they tried to go too "macro " with it. Add OS, better performance optically, and it might jump to the head of the class like the 100-300 f/4 did.

And that 85. My, my. If they do in that FL what the did at 50mm, they just may have shaken the field up a bit.

Sigma, frankly, impresses the hell out of me these days. Take a look:

Sigma 30 1.4: maybe AF accuracy problems, maybe not - if not, brilliant.
Sigma 50 1.4: Made Nikon fanboys cry like little girls.
Sigma 70 2.8 macro: Possibly sharpest macro on the market
Sigma 150 2.8 macro: Pentaxians cry like schoolgirls that this is not available. Brilliant.
Sigma 50-150 2.8 HSM II: Fast, sharp, contrast, colors beyond the rainbow.
Sigma 100-300 f4 HSM: It leads it's class. So sharp wide open you don't need f/5.

And now these new lenses... Kudos, Sigma.



.
You forgot all about the $38,000 (US) 200-500mm F2.8. Again, not in Pentax mount.
That's just over $1,000 per pound of glass
02-20-2010, 10:37 PM   #19
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
Its true
wrong, I whine like a schoolboy.

02-20-2010, 10:41 PM   #20
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
wrong, I whine like a schoolboy.
We all deal with it differently
02-20-2010, 10:52 PM   #21
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
We all deal with it differently
Well, with a new 85, 8mm zoom, 17-50, 70-200 OS all announced for Pentax on day one, we can cry less.

Nikon just came out with a 70-200 2.8 VR II for $2400. I think the guys who bought that are the ones crying right now.


02-20-2010, 11:09 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 818
I wouldn't buy the 85mm, simply because it doesn't have an aperture ring, and I would want to use it on my LX. Also, I have a FA* 85mm so I don't need another 85mm 1.4.

The 70-200mm is a little more interesting to me, especially if the OS + SR would provide a combined effect of greater stabilization than one process alone. That's probably a little too much to ask for though.
02-20-2010, 11:14 PM   #23
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Well, with a new 85, 8mm zoom, 17-50, 70-200 OS all announced for Pentax on day one, we can cry less.
Well said



QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Nikon just came out with a 70-200 2.8 VR II for $2400. I think the guys who bought that are the ones crying right now.
IDK about that. I have a nikon buddy who is set on this lens for nothing more than because its the Nikon 70-200mm VR II.... according to him you can't be pro and be a nikonian without one

Plus, Its got to be absolutely incredible for $2400....right?

02-20-2010, 11:19 PM   #24
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Sigma 50 1.4: Made Nikon fanboys cry like little girls.

.
I never had the pleasure of trying it out when I was with Nikon,since it was practically a new lens during that time and I was on my way out of Nikon's door. though would had loved to try it against the Nikon 50s.

I do somehow agree that the Sigma 50/1.4 has better overall rendering (sharpness, brightness and bokeh) than the Pentax 50/1.4. the Pentax is not that bad, actually it is even great or impressive by it's own right. the deal-breaker however leans more towards price and size, not the overall lens and IQ performance. Sigma is big/heavy and expensive. 2 of the 3 things that I don't like about the Sigma. and the 3rd reason is because I have a 1.2 which is awesome for portraiture.

for someone who is critical about IQ and doesn't have a fast 50 and who needs something for portraiture, doesn't mind lens size and has the money to spend, the Sigma would be the ideal choice.

for someone who is on a tight budget, the cheaper FA50 1.4 or 1.7 would be just as good. or buy some good old manual focus lenses for only $40 bucks.

an AF 85mm as you said would be just perfect for portraiture. so the Sigma 50/1.4 somehow loses ground there. and there's just too many 50's or near 50's jacking up for position.
02-20-2010, 11:22 PM   #25
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote

Nikon just came out with a 70-200 2.8 VR II for $2400. I think the guys who bought that are the ones crying right now.


everyone has their day in the sun. and it turns out it's our turn to buy some body lotion. and it's their (Nikon) turn to buy a set of kleenex.
02-20-2010, 11:30 PM   #26
Forum Member
UltraWide's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 59
8-16

8-16!!!!!!!

I don't care if it's soft.

IT'S 8mm!!!
02-20-2010, 11:45 PM   #27
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Votesh Quote

The 70-200mm is a little more interesting to me, especially if the OS + SR would provide a combined effect of greater stabilization than one process alone. That's probably a little too much to ask for though.
I always imagined that this kind of possibility (OS+SR) would come one day. and in fact it did.

it is something like I imagined before that diskettes will eventually get replaced by smaller usb flash, memory cards, ultra-portable 200+GB eDatadrives and RW CD/DVDs as data storage devices.

thanks to a friend of mine who had a digital camera, memory card, and reader. that kind of idea popped out when I was transferring some photos and decided to use the flash card as a data storage for my files that I had to transfer into another pc. in case you are wondering, this was the time where 1.44MB is big and 0.3MP is great. and I was so happy to use an 8MB MMC card. nowadays, a minimum of 4GB is needed for photos and 32GB for optimum HD video recording. you can even barely put 1 image on an 8MB card nowadays. how time flies.
02-21-2010, 12:01 AM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,713
QuoteOriginally posted by UltraWide Quote
8-16!!!!!!!

I don't care if it's soft.

IT'S 8mm!!!
8mm isn't wide
02-21-2010, 12:03 AM   #29
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 130
A 85/1.4 is always impressive but for portraits my m85 is at F2.8 and F4 that sharp it makes
peoples faces viewed close up like the surface of the moon and the shalow DOF at F2.8
or F4 would not allow me to use AF. The 2.8 telezoom is very tempting though......
02-21-2010, 01:09 AM   #30
Forum Member
UltraWide's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 59
QuoteOriginally posted by little laker Quote
As long as I can't see behind the camera

I'm also lusting after the 85 and the 17-50 is interesting as well.

Ahhh...LBA.
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!
function, k-mount, lens, os, pentax, pentax lens, range, sigma, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Linking ISO steps with EV steps kiwibird Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 01-03-2011 08:51 AM
K7 first steps... jules Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 07-24-2010 09:45 AM
Misc Steps SweetSherri Post Your Photos! 1 05-10-2010 02:41 AM
Travel 114 Steps Up Bob Harris Post Your Photos! 4 03-04-2010 03:37 PM
My first steps with K20D peerSr Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 07-05-2008 09:54 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:39 AM. | 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