[reh321]

True, but from a viability of the company position, even Canon want you to buy the new lenses for the new camera, not reuse old ones. They are real desperate for cash, just like Pentax, just the number of zeroes at the end is different!

I'm not sure that you can even get their existing M series mirrorless lenses (which are also entirely electronic for focus and aperture) working on their new R series mirrorless cameras, it's as if they never existed!

I believe, but do not know, that these are defensive moves. Canon and Nikon are trying to keep their current DSLR users when they go MILC. When I went from film to digital, from a Canon EOS Elan to digital, I purchased a Rebel, because it could seamlessly use the only AF lenses {EOS lenses} I already had; the kit lens - a 18-55mm - provided the necessary wider focal length I needed to make up for the fact that my widest film lens was 28-80mm. Similarly, a current DSLR user can purchase a EOS-M or a EOS-R camera and not have to purchase any more lenses right now, making staying with Canon {or staying with Nikon} more attractive. As I mentioned earlier, I still have four EF lenses, so if I decided I just had to go APS-C MILC right now, the most cost-effective path would be for me to get a Canon EOS-M50 or M5 with an adapter for the lenses I packed away four years ago with the Elan {each of the two Rebels went to the dump when it died}.

Incidentally, when I gave up on Rebels, I came back to Pentax and purchased a K-30, because I still had my Super Program and a few lenses for it .... not AF, but being able to use them made the cost of the change less abrupt {four years later, I'm not using any of the film lenses with my KP, but I spread the purchase of new lenses over those four years}.

---

Last edited by reh321; 05-01-2019 at 01:33 PM.

[clackers]

As I mentioned earlier, I still have four EF lenses, so if I decided I just had to go APS-C MILC right now, the most cost-effective path would be for me to get a Canon EOS-M50 or M5 with an adapter for the lenses I packed away four years ago with the Elan {each of the two Rebels went to the dump when it died}.

Yeah, but if you bought EF-M lenses with that M50 or M5 as people did, you can't reuse them on the R mount, not even in some kind of crop mode!

Adapted EF lenses will never perform as well as on the native DSLRs, so we have this whole, 'I'm shelling out thousands of dollars on a new toy, why isn't it better?"

I own EF lenses myself - Tokina 17-35mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Canon 28mm f2, Canon 50mm and 85mm f1.8.

[Dan Rentea]

Adapted EF lenses will never perform as well as on the native DSLRs, so we have this whole, 'I'm shelling out thousands of dollars on a new toy, why isn't it better?"

All EF lenses work flawlessly with adaptor on EOS R. There are 3 weeks since I'm testing the focus on EOS R with EF lenses. I woudn't believe it if I haven't try it. This is a good thing because I can make the transition to mirrorless in time and replace my EF lenses one by one when their time is done.

I have to done another test when the new RF lenses will be released and see how a RF 70-200mm f2.8 for example will compare on EOS R to EF 70-200mm f2.8.

[reh321]

Yeah, but if you bought EF-M lenses with that M50 or M5 as people did, you can't reuse them on the R mount, not even in some kind of crop mode!

EF-S lenses, from crop-sensor DSLR cameras, are not usable on EF-mount "FF" cameras, not even in some kind of crop mode! (*)
No change there.
This model has worked for Canon for the last dozen years - when they've sold a lot more than Pentax has - why should they change now?


(*) I've heard that the lens sticks further into the body, so a "FF" mirror would hit it, but I've never been tempted to modify my remaining EF-S lens and mount it on my old 35mm camera to try that theory.

[boriscleto]

iPhone sales were off 17% in China. Smartphones are Doomed™.

[clackers]

All EF lenses work flawlessly with adaptor on EOS R.

That they work isn't the same thing as saying as they work as well on your 5D Mk IV, Dan. As Photography Life found:

"in many cases, you’ll be hard pressed to notice the difference between their performance on the EOS R and a Canon DSLR camera body. The adapter also works with existing third-party lens options designed for the Canon EF mount, and I was able to use the EOS R alongside both the Tamron 100-400mm and Sigma 100-400mm lenses. While their performance wasn’t at the same level as a native EF mount lens, with noticeably laggy autofocus in low light environments, they both offered respectable performances."

[clackers]

EF-S lenses, from crop-sensor DSLR cameras, are not usable on EF-mount "FF" cameras, not even in some kind of crop mode! (*)
No change there.

I know, but DA lenses are usable on a K-1!

We can see different philosophies at work.

[Dan Rentea]

That they work isn't the same thing as saying as they work as well on your 5D Mk IV, Dan. As Photography Life found:

"in many cases, you’ll be hard pressed to notice the difference between their performance on the EOS R and a Canon DSLR camera body. The adapter also works with existing third-party lens options designed for the Canon EF mount, and I was able to use the EOS R alongside both the Tamron 100-400mm and Sigma 100-400mm lenses. While their performance wasn’t at the same level as a native EF mount lens, with noticeably laggy autofocus in low light environments, they both offered respectable performances."

Yes, when comes to Canon EF lenses, you will be hard pressed to notice any difference in performance on EOS R and 5D Mark IV. Sorry if I wasn't so specific. When I said "all the EF lenses will work..." I was thinking on Canon EF lenses, not on the third party lenses.

I don't know about third party lenses because I don't have any. Despite the very much improved performance in the last couple of years, I do prefer the OEM lenses. It may be very true that Tamron/Sigma 100-400mm lenses are not working so good on EOS R and that Sigma/Tamron didn't succeded to fully reverse engineer the RF mount yet.

[clackers]

and that Sigma/Tamron didn't succeded to fully reverse engineer the RF mount yet.

I think that Sigma are being very stubborn to release lenses for their L mount rather than RF. Anyway, family owned companies can defy common sense like that.

[carlwood]

I just came across this discussion today - which is along the lines of how I have been thinking lately, so I'd like to join the discussion if I may.

Lately, I have been (sort of) thinking about the possibility of buying a Canon or other DSLR body, mostly with longer telephoto lenses in mind, however, I find the replacement cost of new equipment is extremely prohibitive.

So the idea of using bodies from a non-Pentax maker is engendered by a personal interest in the ability to use lenses from third party manufacturers on the one camera body. The delay in Ricoh/Pentax's bringing out of the K-1 led to Tamron and Sigma, and maybe a couple of others, dropping lenses with a K-mount. So it feels like the line-up of lenses for the K-1 is a bit lacking, mostly at the telephoto end of the scale. Pentax/Takumar have made some exceptional lenses over the decades (I have a quite a few) and many of these are readily available online and work exceptionally well with the k-1, and from personal experience the K-5 and Ist D.

Some years ago, with the advent of digital movie cameras, and coming from a cinematographic work background, I investigated the possible use of cine-camera lenses on digital DSLRs, with thoughts of lenses like the great Angenieux zooms that were becoming redundant in mind - fast, amazing picture quality, and once in focus at the tight end they are in focus all the way through the zoom (sorry I forget the term - "parfocal"?). I spoke with a very respected cine-lensman in London, and apart from mentioning that "everyone" was calling him about this subject, he advised that the limiting problem was at the rear of the cine lenses which extend far into the camera body and would therefore not permit their use on DSLRs with mirrrors which would catch on the back of the lens.

Then, of course, mirrorless camera came out and I guess all the good cine lenses were snapped up in the rush (you did have to get a special mount made at some expense).

Anyway, whilst I believe that the image quality on the K-1 is very good, I think that Ricoh is falling a bit short on the lens line-up - it would be good to have some higher quality "long" lenses available from Ricoh/Pentax to complement the full-frame DSLR and which would marry well with the K1 (or K2) body.

[clackers]

I just came across this discussion today - which is along the lines of how I have been thinking lately, so I'd like to join the discussion if I may.

Lately, I have been (sort of) thinking about the possibility of buying a Canon or other DSLR body, mostly with longer telephoto lenses in mind, however, I find the replacement cost of new equipment is extremely prohibitive.

So the idea of using bodies from a non-Pentax maker is engendered by a personal interest in the ability to use lenses from third party manufacturers on the one camera body. The delay in Ricoh/Pentax's bringing out of the K-1 led to Tamron and Sigma, and maybe a couple of others, dropping lenses with a K-mount. So it feels like the line-up of lenses for the K-1 is a bit lacking, mostly at the telephoto end of the scale. Pentax/Takumar have made some exceptional lenses over the decades (I have a quite a few) and many of these are readily available online and work exceptionally well with the k-1, and from personal experience the K-5 and Ist D.

Some years ago, with the advent of digital movie cameras, and coming from a cinematographic work background, I investigated the possible use of cine-camera lenses on digital DSLRs, with thoughts of lenses like the great Angenieux zooms that were becoming redundant in mind - fast, amazing picture quality, and once in focus at the tight end they are in focus all the way through the zoom (sorry I forget the term - "parfocal"?). I spoke with a very respected cine-lensman in London, and apart from mentioning that "everyone" was calling him about this subject, he advised that the limiting problem was at the rear of the cine lenses which extend far into the camera body and would therefore not permit their use on DSLRs with mirrrors which would catch on the back of the lens.

Then, of course, mirrorless camera came out and I guess all the good cine lenses were snapped up in the rush (you did have to get a special mount made at some expense).

Anyway, whilst I believe that the image quality on the K-1 is very good, I think that Ricoh is falling a bit short on the lens line-up - it would be good to have some higher quality "long" lenses available from Ricoh/Pentax to complement the full-frame DSLR and which would marry well with the K1 (or K2) body.

Unfortunately, no camera maker thinks that way, Carl - that their body is a convenient all-in-one solution for everyone else's lenses.

It doesn't make business sense, because you have to recover the money spent researching, developing and building the camera, and lenses are a very big way!

Nor in a declining market do Sigma, Tamron and Tokina want to make much in the way of lenses for niche brands like Hasselblad, Olympus, Ricoh, Fuji, Panasonic and Leica.

The higher quality long lenses for FF in the Ricoh lineup include the DA*300, DFA 150-450 and DA*560.

[carlwood]

You are, of course, quite right Clackers re the good business sense. We used to have access to a wider range of lenses for Pentax from other makers, but I guess times have changed, and the market situation as mainly discussed in the the thread has also contributed (even though Tamron & Sigma still seem to make a lot of stuff for Canon & Nikon) I note the 300mm. lens currently available from Ricoh - I had the M42 300 f4. years ago and sold it in a needy moment - I've regretted it ever since. Last year I picked up an old Tamron 200 - 500 which is a behemoth piece of metal and glass. Fixing it to the body is rather like building up a cine-camera onset - it takes quite a while and lots of effort before you are able to press the shutter button!
I also note the 150-450 which I'd love to be able to try out before I made a purchase. The thing with the Pentax 150-450 is that it is rather slow and does not have a constant aperture throughout the zoom range. Be good if it was an f4 too, not that you'd get much depth of field at that aperture, but it would assist focusing. From my personal point of view the 560mm. is a bit of an odd focal length.
I suppose we all have different requirements in terms of what kind of photographs we're into shooting at the moment - "you can please some of the people some of the time.....". But it's nice to be able to talk about these things a bit with interested parties.

[Dan Rentea]

You are, of course, quite right Clackers re the good business sense. We used to have access to a wider range of lenses for Pentax from other makers, but I guess times have changed, and the market situation as mainly discussed in the the thread has also contributed (even though Tamron & Sigma still seem to make a lot of stuff for Canon & Nikon) I note the 300mm. lens currently available from Ricoh - I had the M42 300 f4. years ago and sold it in a needy moment - I've regretted it ever since. Last year I picked up an old Tamron 200 - 500 which is a behemoth piece of metal and glass. Fixing it to the body is rather like building up a cine-camera onset - it takes quite a while and lots of effort before you are able to press the shutter button!
I also note the 150-450 which I'd love to be able to try out before I made a purchase. The thing with the Pentax 150-450 is that it is rather slow and does not have a constant aperture throughout the zoom range. Be good if it was an f4 too, not that you'd get much depth of field at that aperture, but it would assist focusing. From my personal point of view the 560mm. is a bit of an odd focal length.
I suppose we all have different requirements in terms of what kind of photographs we're into shooting at the moment - "you can please some of the people some of the time.....". But it's nice to be able to talk about these things a bit with interested parties.

A Pentax 150-450mm f4 would have cost 10.000$+. Look for comparation at Canon 200-400mm f4L lens that has a 1.4x TC built in. It costs 11.000$. I'm not sure how many lenses like that Pentax will sell. Canon and Nikon sell this lenses to sport agencies and to serious wildlife photographers. Unfortunately, Pentax doesn't have bodies for this kind of lenses which are build for speed.

I think that Ricoh did a pretty good job releasing the 150-450mm lens for the enthusiastic wildlife photographers instead of an f4 zoom or prime lens that would have cost 5000$ or more.

[clackers]

Be good if it was an f4 too

Now, Carl, this is *real* fringe stuff. Dan's correct, and I've shot a Nikon 600mm f4 on a D5 (someone else's, of course!) and that's a twelve thousand dollar lens here.

A sports pro will use a 400mm f2.8, and that's up there too price wise.

Everyone else, and I'm guessing that's you and me, make do with other choices until our lottery numbers come up.

[carlwood]

And you are quite right too, Dan, in your pricing of an f4 Pentax 150-450! And you gain too, Clackers - maybe I'm just a bit frustrated with what (I think) I'd like and what I can afford. I am a committed Pentax user - I bought my first Spotmatic in a secondhand shop in Melbourne in 1975. I've still got it and the f3.5 28mm lens it came with - a real bargain then at Aus$65!! And I'm very happy with my line up of very-useable-on-a-K-1-Takumar lenses. To be honest, if my lottery did come up I'm pretty sure that I'd stick with Pentax anyway.


Thank you for being patient with me!

---------- Post added 05-28-19 at 11:20 PM ----------

I think I just needed the therapy!!