[normhead]

Yeah stupid amateurs. Don't you dare touch anything Full Frame without a licence or we pro's will slap your ass. So stfu and go shoot pictures of your cat m'kay!

Thanks for saving me the effort of an equally sarcastic response...

But the real thing is, at $2400, I can't afford it. You can't sell me one, but if you want to give me one...

---

Last edited by normhead; 10-02-2014 at 02:30 PM.

[monochrome]

You missed this:

[/sarc]

I've been on sort of a rant today. Time to rest,.

[Nicolas06]

What is wrong with the lens being priced at $2400, how much do you want to pay for it $179.99? Listen people if you don't want to play with professional toys then just go and skip stones by a lake (or buy cheap APS dslrs). I don't have issue with that price, provided the lens delivers in IQ. The FA 80-200mm f2.8 is over a grand that that's and that lens is over 10 years old. I'm sick and tired of people whining not having a full frame digital option on Pentax, and freaking out when people talk about prospective pricing in the two-three grand area. These are professional tools, Pentax doesn't expect any Jack, Joe and Marry to suddenly buy into this system. I won't expect the new Pentax 70-200mm f2.8 to be cheaper than the Sigma Sport 70-200mm or the Tamron equivalent, because I feel Pentax glass delivers much more than just high MTF scores. If you truly believe that Pentax glass is as good or better than Canon or Nikon then be prepared to pay accordingly

What's wrong? Really ? Justifying this as a pro shooter is like justifying you need a Roll Royce as a taxi driver. If you are part of the official coverings the Olympics I would agree... But would think you'd need longers focals too.

Anyway, you can get almost the same from sigma for $1000 and get a used tamron 70-200 screw drive, that has good 1:3 magnification for 450€. For most occasions you'll not be able to distinguish the photos.

Of course one can buy the Canikon, like one can buy Roll Royce. Is it even interresting or necessary for most peoples, including pro? I really doubt it. Don't see many taxi drivers or trucks drivers using Roll Royces. (Even through many plane have roll royce motors).

I really think that without the many pro on board that can buy useless gear and put it as investment and deduce tax from it (or make their client pay for it), nobody would buy theses lenses.

[ElJamoquio]

Anyway, you can get almost the same from sigma for $1000 and get a used tamron 70-200 screw drive, that has good 1:3 magnification for 450€. For most occasions you'll not be able to distinguish the photos.

...assuming you got the shot...

[Stavri]

Thanks for saving me the effort of an equally sarcastic response...

But the real thing is, at $2400, I can't afford it. You can't sell me one, but if you want to give me one...

Please don't feed the monkey's or they're start throwing their feces....

Disclaimer: I am an amateur photographer, my gallery posts here are purely comparative in nature.
I'm of the opinion that here's nothing wrong with having an FA* fast telephoto zoom in the low $2000 (the Da* 60-250 was north of $1500, or 990 euro when it came out) , nothing wrong with paying a little more for a FF Pentax. If you cannot afford the MSRP wait for the price to drop. Bear in mind that the the company makes no profit on second hand buyers. If the Pentax FF was a kick-started project most of those who complain about its nonexistence (and tear their hair out on the prospect of paying 2 grand for it) wouldn't be able to fund it. If you cannot fund it, then you have no business asking for it, its that simple.

Yeah stupid amateurs. Don't you dare touch anything Full Frame without a licence or we pro's will slap your ass. So stfu and go shoot pictures of your cat m'kay!

Marc, Dino or Fred Flinstone whatever is your monicker, I don't think that your ONE photo on your gallery qualifies your in judging mine.

[thibs]

What's wrong? Really ? Justifying this as a pro shooter is like justifying you need a Roll Royce as a taxi driver. If you are part of the official coverings the Olympics I would agree... But would think you'd need longers focals too.

Anyway, you can get almost the same from sigma for $1000 and get a used tamron 70-200 screw drive, that has good 1:3 magnification for 450€. For most occasions you'll not be able to distinguish the photos.

Of course one can buy the Canikon, like one can buy Roll Royce. Is it even interresting or necessary for most peoples, including pro? I really doubt it. Don't see many taxi drivers or trucks drivers using Roll Royces. (Even through many plane have roll royce motors).

I really think that without the many pro on board that can buy useless gear and put it as investment and deduce tax from it (or make their client pay for it), nobody would buy theses lenses.

I said there would be stupid price arguments, here's one.
So, buying the Canon or Nikon lens is alright but buying the Pentax one is not because Sigma and Tamron can sell you the same (uh... NOT) lens at half the price.
Again, you wish for FF but you won't pay a dime for it.

And we moan because Pentax users are cheap. No wondeR.

[Zygonyx]

Le beurre, l'argent du beurre, et la laitière par dessus le marché

[Wild Mark]

Can I offer a lighter perspective ....

Perhaps one can use the FA* 80-200mm legacy lens as a useful yardstick for pricing I bought one in near mint condition for US$1,300 - if the new lens is its equal or better then I suspect you would be paying about that much and perhaps a little more bearing in mind the Tamron and Sigma competition is considerably cheaper (by comparison). I would imagine that such a product would not be overpriced to the point where very few could afford - that would be silly.

Anyway, if our keen for this sort of glass and have FF compatibility in mind then go and get yourself a FA* 80-200mm - problem solved - it is awesome glass!!!!!

[bossa]

Yeah stupid amateurs. Don't you dare touch anything Full Frame without a licence or we pro's will slap your ass. So stfu and go shoot pictures of your cat m'kay!

He didn't say that at all.

[Nicolas06]

I said there would be stupid price arguments, here's one.
So, buying the Canon or Nikon lens is alright but buying the Pentax one is not because Sigma and Tamron can sell you the same (uh... NOT) lens at half the price.
Again, you wish for FF but you won't pay a dime for it.

And we moan because Pentax users are cheap. No wondeR.

Me I don't want FF... I'am too affraid it mean bigger optics. And the biggest problem of 70-200 for me is the size. I'am almost happy with what I have. I'am also invested in APSC and I would need to change half my gear. That's at least 4000€ to spend for an FF setup. Not worth the trouble.

As for engineering, I'am sure you can have good lenses for a bargain, I don't see any justification to spend more to milk Canon, Nikon or Pentax. I may finally buy one, but it doesn't mean I think the price is fair. I don't at all think Canikon is more justified than Pentax.

Realilty is that with some volume you could have better quality lenses like thoses Canon 70-200 for 500$ if they would sell it in huge quantity. This is exactly what happened for phones. In the end price are high because they are marketed as such (as the high end lenses) and because at this price & weight, almost nobody buy them.

Sigma/Tamron made a middle ground offering your high quality glass, maybe a bit less quality in term of AF or ultimate picture quality... And that the whole argument to spend twice the price. I don't think this is worth it.

I mean there always better and we all know that for ultimate quality, MF is better than FF... But most do not consider MF because it is too expensive. Some consider thoses 70-200 from Canikon not really because they give a huge difference toward the latest sigma, but just because it is still in their acceptable price range. They can throw the money and have a marginally better product. That's a way of thinking. That by no way the only way or the ultimate deal one can have in photography !

[D1N0]

Please don't feed the monkey's or they're start throwing their feces....


Marc, Dino or Fred Flinstone whatever is your monicker, I don't think that your ONE photo on your gallery qualifies your in judging mine.

Just a pp challenge pic Dude. Get of your high horse and get real. I have no intention of judging your gallery. If that is what you meant, because your English is a bit odd for somebody claiming to be from the US of A.

[thibs]

Actually, I agree with you, Nicolas: sigma/tamron/tokina etc. offrent provide sound alternatives. That's the raison d'être of a third party.

But we're talking about Pentax/Ricoh regarding prices, not a third party. Prices should be compared with OEMs, not 3rd party.

[Stavri]

Can I offer a lighter perspective ....

Perhaps one can use the FA* 80-200mm legacy lens as a useful yardstick for pricing I bought one in near mint condition for US$1,300 - if the new lens is its equal or better then I suspect you would be paying about that much and perhaps a little more bearing in mind the Tamron and Sigma competition is considerably cheaper (by comparison). I would imagine that such a product would not be overpriced to the point where very few could afford - that would be silly.

Anyway, if our keen for this sort of glass and have FF compatibility in mind then go and get yourself a FA* 80-200mm - problem solved - it is awesome glass!!!!!

I agree Mark, i was trying to do the same but it seems people don't understand that Fa/DA* glass is expensive even used. Logic dictates that the newly designed fast FA lenses will be as well.

Just a pp challenge pic Dude. Get of your high horse and get real. I have no intention of judging your gallery. If that is what you meant, because your English is a bit odd for somebody claiming to be from the US of A.

Let's just say you got your brand new shinny Pentax FF for very cheap. Do you need a wide gamut monitor to go with it? Of course you do. You need a 27" monitor to PP your amazing pristine high ISO shots for 24x36" prints, 97.3% Adobe RGB output, perfectly calibrated to make those colors true to life. Starting at a mere $1200 Nec has you covered. (throw in a beefy Desktop with a Nvidia quatro to encode they 4K videos you will be shooting with it for another $2500 and you're good to go) Now think whether you need all this fancy gear, because I'm of the opinion most people don't, just like they don't need FF or fast FA* glass.

If the new glass is too rich for your blood here's your alternative:
Price reduced! Pentax FA* 80-200mm 2.8 Like New, with Hood and Soft Case

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/269876-sal...#ixzz3F5F9UKMj

for just 1155 (how do you say.... Euro?) NO?

[VoiceOfReason]

I already have some FF capable glass. My computer can encode and process 4k video, and I already have a 4k monitor (actually running dual monitors). So, what could I do with FF?

[Stavri]

I already have some FF capable glass. My computer can encode and process 4k video, and I already have a 4k monitor (actually running dual monitors). So, what could I do with FF?

You tell me.....my guess is prints like these shot at night: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/274741-holy-scheisse-k-3-p...ml#post2962864

(wide gamut monitors are expensive, high resolution doesn't matter, unless you paid over $3000 for your twin set)