[cali92rs]

QuickShift Focusing ... ?

Ok that makes sense, thanks

I just picked up a 35mm f2.4 AL as a cheap AF alternate to my K28mm f2.0 (sometimes you just don't feel like focusing manually), and definitely, my biggest gripe about that lens is its lack of quick shift focussing, which is almost mandatory when using the center autofocus point on the K-5.

[thibs]

Agreed, leaving out qsf even on cheap prime is a real annoyance


Falk: if only you were right ...

[lytrytyr]

the 14mm f/2.8 could be replaced by a ff lens.

Say the FA 20/2.8?

[ElJamoquio]

Say the FA 20/2.8?

Which would be quite a bit more capable in terms of light gathering.

If you're only looking for F/2.8 on APS-C, the F20-35mm F/4 zoom might be something to take a look at.

[gazonk]

Which would be quite a bit more capable in terms of light gathering.

If you're only looking for F/2.8 on APS-C, the F20-35mm F/4 zoom might be something to take a look at.

The FA20/2.8 gets so much praise, I wish they would start building it again.

The FA20-35 seems to be reduced at Yodobashi right now, maybe something to look at for Japan travelers: http://www.yodobashi.com/ペンタックス-FAズーム20-35mmF4-AL-広角ズームレンズ-20-35mm-F4-0-ペンタッ...0104102101905/

[Docrwm]

Well, it seems we are not alone in our pain. This article at LensRentals.Com discusses sticker shock with Canikon and offers suggestions for finding lens bargains. Seems that there are some among th eBig Two's offerings but there are also some among the 3rd party lens makers as well.

LensRentals.com - The Best Lens Bargains

[loveisageless]

The Nikon equivalent of the 12-24 is the Tokina 12-24, which is less than half as much - you save ~$500.

The 16-50 has a rep for failure. Perhaps it's fixed now and it's worth as much as the Nikon now.

The FA Limiteds have the same light transmission as the F/1.8's of Nikons that cost ~$400-500 less. Build quality is lower and weight is higher but you get WR and A/F. Tradeoff?

No comparison. The Nikon's you mention are plastic fantastics. I've had the 28mm, 50mm and the 85 mm ones. According to Ken Rockwell, Nikon has gone to a lead free solder in the manufacture of these lenses. The solder is known to deteriorate after 10 years or so making them unfixable/unusable. We will see how many happy Nikon customers there will be when that occurs. Resale value a few years down the road will be nil.

[wildimages]

Well Doc, you're right, lenses are not cheap anywhere. But - (you knew that was coming didn't you LOL)

When I buy a lens for my Nikon, I buy a FF capable lens. That lens will work on both my d7000 and any full frame Nikon camera I might buy in the future (and as of today, they have FOUR to choose from).

In comparison, if I buy a Pentax lens GENERALLY SPEAKING it is useful only on ASP-C cameras. So should Pentax release a FF camera, I will have to buy lenses that - again - GENERALLY SPEAKING - will work on it.

But please consider other factors. The Nikon 300 f4 at 1369, vs the Pentax DA* 300 f4 at 1396 seem to be about on par with each other. However, the Nikon lens can be coupled with the stellar 1.4 TC or even the 1.7 TC which you can not do with Pentax at any price (unless you buy used of course - and can find one).

So while the prices may be on par, the VALUE, is far exceeded by other manufactures, FOR SOME PHOTOGRAPHERS - depending on the type of photography they do. Additionally, while I might not like to pay 8 grand for a 500mm lens from Nikon, the new 80 400 zoom is pretty nice, even if it is 2600 bucks - a lens well within the reach of many non pro photographers that Pentax doesn't even make.

Combine that with the third party options that are much more numerous for other manufactures than they are for Pentax and again, while the prices may be on par, the VALUE is not. At one time. Pentax had the value angle going for it with their lower prices, but they have squandered that advantage.


As to the lead free issue - I have to agree it is an issue - and since it is a common industry standard today - I also have to wonder if Pentax is not doing the same. If they are not, this might be an excellent point for them to make in their marketing, but I suspect, they are, and, with the current SDM fiasco, it really isn't going to matter because the lenses wont last that long anyway.

Disclaimer - there are a HOST of problems with every camera company today. Nikon has their share, not only with dirty sensors, but other things too. No company is immune and a consumer has to know what he or she is getting into when choosing or switching systems. Pentax is no better or worse than anyone else in this respect.

[Tonto]

I can't tell you how many times I've mentioned B&H prices to no avail. Things are probably different now though as the Pentax Australia Web Store probably allows stores to negotiate directly with CRK using their own online prices as leverage. In the past CRK was only prepared to try to mach Sigma prices. CRK also insists on new orders for most new prices so even if a store has a unit in stock they still require that store to make a new order for the same item in most cases.

If what you say is true how does a shop like Paxtons EVER make money? I'm not being sarcastic or anyting just realistic- its not just Pentax mount they have sh#t ticket pricing on. Also not necessarily just overseas websites you could quote Digital Camera Warehouse or Digidirect - although those sites will be far more variable.

[ElJamoquio]

No comparison. The Nikon's you mention are plastic fantastics. I've had the 28mm, 50mm and the 85 mm ones.

I thought I laid out a pretty good summary for the amount of attention-span I assumed. The build quality is lower, which I stated.

According to Ken Rockwell, Nikon has gone to a lead free solder in the manufacture of these lenses. The solder is known to deteriorate after 10 years or so making them unfixable/unusable. We will see how many happy Nikon customers there will be when that occurs. Resale value a few years down the road will be nil.

Is this the same Ken Rockwell who said there's no aperture and shutter speed dial on the 645D, and that it had too many ways to expose an image?

Pentax has sold lenses in the EU after 2006... leading me to conclude a $1300 lens that's dead in 10 years is worse than a $200 lens that's dead in 10 years.

Of course I'm not worried about it yet, either. Early failures should be now.

[cali92rs]

No comparison. The Nikon's you mention are plastic fantastics. I've had the 28mm, 50mm and the 85 mm ones. According to Ken Rockwell, Nikon has gone to a lead free solder in the manufacture of these lenses. The solder is known to deteriorate after 10 years or so making them unfixable/unusable. We will see how many happy Nikon customers there will be when that occurs. Resale value a few years down the road will be nil.

I would be surprised if all lens manufacturers nowadays didn't do that including pentax, if not now definitely within the next 5-10 years. It is an industry wide trend including the aerospace industry to move away from lead and other hazardous materials, ljke chromium, cadmium etc.

[loveisageless]

I thought I laid out a pretty good summary for the amount of attention-span I assumed. The build quality is lower, which I stated.



Is this the same Ken Rockwell who said there's no aperture and shutter speed dial on the 645D, and that it had too many ways to expose an image?

Pentax has sold lenses in the EU after 2006... leading me to conclude a $1300 lens that's dead in 10 years is worse than a $200 lens that's dead in 10 years.

Of course I'm not worried about it yet, either. Early failures should be now.

Ken Rockwell is taken with a grain of salt on many issues. That $1300 lens will still be able to focus manually. The deterioration in the solder on the $200 one will gum up the works and make it unusable.

[bossa]

The Nikon 300 f4 at 1369, vs the Pentax DA* 300 f4 at 1396 seem to be about on par with each other. However, the Nikon lens can be coupled with the stellar 1.4 TC or even the 1.7 TC which you can not do with Pentax at any price (unless you buy used of course - and can find one).

So while the prices may be on par, the VALUE, is far exceeded by other manufactures, FOR SOME PHOTOGRAPHERS - depending on the type of photography they do. Additionally, while I might not like to pay 8 grand for a 500mm lens from Nikon, the new 80 400 zoom is pretty nice, even if it is 2600 bucks - a lens well within the reach of many non pro photographers that Pentax doesn't even make.

The Nikon AF-S 300mm F4 costs $1695 here in Australia (I paid $1645 for mine.. a ripoff) and the DA*300 around the $1350 mark. The da* is a better lens optically, is also weather sealed and even has faster focusing.. and don't forget that on a Pentax body it is also stabilized unlike the AF-S 300mm. Pentax are supposed to be releasing a AF converter later this year aren't they?

[cwood]

As much as I LOVED my old Pentax lenses...

Do you remember 10 years ago when people would compare Pentax to Canon L Glass and say that Pentax was AT LEAST AS GOOD.

Well guess what - Canon has re-vamped those lenses 2 or 3 times since then. The used market on the OLD (10 year old) equipment continues to fall while the NEW and REDESIGNED lenses see price increases.

It seems like Pentax feels entitled to skip the whole "new release" step in product marketing and they are happy to just jack the prices on their old stuff while pretending that the new expensive prices reflect the same modern advancement as the competition.

Canon
70-200mm F2.8
70-200mm F2.8 IS
70-200mm F2.8 IS II

Canon
20-35mm F2.8
17-35mm F2.8
16-35mm F2.8
16-35mm F2.8 II

Canon
24-70mm F2.8
24-70mm F2.8 II
24-70mm F4 IS

[Gray]

It seems like Pentax feels entitled to skip the whole "new release" step in product marketing and they are happy to just jack the prices on their old stuff while pretending that the new expensive prices reflect the same modern advancement as the competition.

Exactly. I didn't mind that Pentax lenses weren't refreshed and the range rather skimpy, because they were good value for money. No longer.

Pentax is simply jacking up margins in an effort to attract (B&M) dealers back to the brand -- seems so 20th century to me, what with B&M's practically dead anyway.