[Mistral75]

Seeing the 60-250 next to the 70-200 convinced me that for my lifestyle I don't want FF.

Isn't he comparison between an f/4 APS-C lens and an f/2.8 24x36 lens a bit biased?

[Class A]

Seeing the 60-250 next to the 70-200 convinced me that for my lifestyle I don't want FF.

The 60-250 is an FF lens as well (it covers the FF image circle rather well). If you are happy with its size/weight you'd be able to use it (or a very comparable alternative) on an FF camera.

What you are saying is that "f/2.8 lenses are too heavy/big for me" and that you "prefer f/4 lenses" (at least at such focal lengths).

Remember that the "f/2.8" specification of the 50-135 is not FF-equivalent. You have to compare its size/weight to an f/4 lens on FF.

[Kunzite]

Let's not go there again.

[bdery]

Isn't he comparison between an f/4 APS-C lens and an f/2.8 24x36 lens a bit biased?

True. I should have said : the kind of lenses that people seem to expect on full frame are not the kind of lenses that I want to be using.

The 60-250 is an FF lens as well (it covers the FF image circle rather well). If you are happy with its size/weight you'd be able to use it (or a very comparable alternative) on an FF camera.

I believe it covers the FF image circle up to about 200mm, roughly. But you're right f4 has more to do with it.

[robjmitchell]

The 60-250 is an FF lens as well (it covers the FF image circle rather well). If you are happy with its size/weight you'd be able to use it (or a very comparable alternative) on an FF camera.

What you are saying is that "f/2.8 lenses are too heavy/big for me" and that you "prefer f/4 lenses" (at least at such focal lengths).

Remember that the "f/2.8" specification of the 50-135 is not FF-equivalent. You have to compare its size/weight to an f/4 lens on FF.

The 50-135 compares quite favourably to the cannon 70-200/4L IS. $150 cheaper, 100g lighter, more depth of field at same aperture, or faster aperture at same depth of field. Only negative is slow AF speed. I'm looking forward to FF on the wide end while using aps-c on the long.

[Class A]

The 50-135 compares quite favourably to the cannon 70-200/4L IS. $150 cheaper, 100g lighter,

However, the Canon has IS built-in and a much better AF motor. AFAIC, that should yield a bigger price differential.

more depth of field at same aperture, or faster aperture at same depth of field.

You are taking the wrong angle on comparing formats. But let's not go there (off-topic and quickly becomes a lengthy debate; look up "equivalence ", if you are interested).

I'm looking forward to FF on the wide end while using aps-c on the long.

If you are currently using a 16MP APS-C camera, you could replace it with the upcoming FF model without losing "reach".

Only if you are using a K-3 already then going FF would imply losing croppability.

[robjmitchell]

However, the Canon has IS built-in and a much better AF motor. AFAIC, that should yield a bigger price differential.


You are taking the wrong angle on comparing formats. But let's not go there (off-topic and quickly becomes a lengthy debate; look up "equivalence ", if you are interested).



If you are currently using a 16MP APS-C camera, you could replace it with the upcoming FF model without losing "reach".

Only if you are using a K-3 already then going FF would imply losing croppability.

The main point is that using a 50-135/2.8 on Aps-c vs 70-200/4 on FF has no drawback (other than a systems AF capability) and saves a little bit of weight and a lot of money if you include the cost of the FF body. If you only have one body and you want FF for other benefits then then you get the FF system. But if you shoot with two bodies then you still have the FF capability while saving a bucket load on the second aps-c body/lens.

[Wired]

The Edmonton Expo was very much the same. I interrogated the Pentax Canada reps' pretty hard. They played ball for quite a bit of it, but I was disappointed... I'll get to why.


They had the two FF lenses on display, I played with the 24-70 a bit. i was mostly unimpressed. But I may be pickier than most. I found the AF was quick, but compared to my Nikon 24-70 f2.8 G it was pretty slow. The AF is faster than anything Pentax has out currently (that I've used), but I think that was the biggest disappointment. I found the zoom throw was too long too, but that was personal preference I'm sure. Checking the back screen of the K3ii I was shooting on it seemed very sharp, accurate, and produced good colour. In that regards it is exactly what I expected. Overall it's exactly what I expected...and disappointed me the same way the Tamron did when I bought my Nikon 24-70 two years ago.

The 70-200 was very impressive, and I was giggling the whole time I was using it. It's bigger than the Nikon 70-200, but not by much I don't think. Weight feels about the same, and it handles very similarly to the 70-200 f2.8 VRII from Nikon. The AF was pretty quick, I'd say similar if not the same as the Nikon VRII, which is very very impressive. Even a full throw took less than a second. The image quality was very nice and sharp, good contrast, and beautiful rendering when used to snap a few portraits. It's weighty, it's big, but its no different than my day to day setup that I'm used to right now (Nikon D810 with 70-200 f2.8 VRII) and I think if the new FF camera comes out with a larger AF point array then Pentax have ticked off a very huge box for professional shooters for weddings, events, portraits...everything. $2500 is a bit much I think for this lens, $2200 I think is more suitable. But it is a great lens and targeted to professional or advanced amateur shooters.

This kind of brings me to an observation in this thread and elsewhere in the forums: people are seeing the 70-200mm f2.8 as too big and heavy to be used as a general purpose telephoto zoom, which is exactly what it is. It's also on par with the Canikon equivalents. This is the problem with FF, Pentaxians are used to small, compact bodies and lenses that are not all too heavy. FF requires these larger, heavier bodies and lenses. So to me... I think many will be disappointed overall because the cameras and lenses will be too heavy for them.

A proper strap or bag will help you adapt. I use a Peak Design Slide and a Lowpro Protactic for my kit, and the bag is probably around 12kg fully loaded. (D810, 70-200, 24-70, 50mm f1.4 ART, Profoto B1, triggers, compact light stand (gets to 7ft), umbrella, folding softbox, tablet, extra batteries and cards) and I've hiked into remote locations in British Columbia mountains without problems aside from being exhausted by the time I got back to the hotel.



As for the other brands. Yes, Canon and Nikon just had more of the same. While interesting products once you get to using them and feeling them out, they are not innovative and bring nothing new. While Pentax is playing catchup to them in flash technology and full-frame, and that is what we, as Pentaxians, would like and get excited about, the truth is they already have it, albeit without image stabilization. The V1 series from Nikon interests me, but I find it overpriced.

Olympus and Panasonic stuff gets more and more interesting with every new generation. I played with the EM5 mark II for the first time, even though it is pretty old, and I remembered why I loved my old EM5 so much. It really is a fantastic camera, and there is amazing glass for it. I love the EM1 too, such a beautiful camera that handles very well. the EVF is top notch too, but has a rolling shutter effect that would drive me nuts for action shooting.

The Fuji stuff always tempts me so much, and I had to go check out the new f2.8 zooms they came out with. I'm not going to lie... I'm seriously considering dropping Pentax for these cameras if they come out with something around 24mp or more in the future. The XT-1 is one of the best cameras I've ever shot with, and I've owned one three times. I keep handing it back because of the limited flash sync speed and the fact it still feels like a step back from my K3 because of the resolution. The lenses are all knurled metal and feel bloody fantastic. I don't know why anyone says they look cheap because they look and feel beautiful. I love the aperture ring on them too. They are so good it's not even funny. If the Pentax FF disappoints me on flash sync speed and fuji do what is rumored and release an XT-2 with upgraded flash sync speed and a 24mp sensor... it will be hard not to consider switching... that 56mm XT f1.2 lens... my god... so good you have no idea, especially the new version. Wow, just incredible. Seriously, I'd sell my remaining K5 and all my Pentax glass aside from the FA Limiteds and switch to Fuji if the FF doesn't check off all the boxes. I only use my K3 as an event camera now anyways and the Xt1 I think could beat it for that purpose.


My biggest disappointment and why my excitement for the FF has dipped is because of the answers on sync speed. Maybe it's because they don't want to reveal special specs on the FF, but the reps answers were troubling. For my work sync-speed is the #1 selling point on any camera. If I can't shoot with the hotshoe "unlocked" or with a high native sync speed then I am severely limited. I'd say 80% of my work in the past year has used flash in one form or another, so yes, it is very important to me. I realize I'm in the minority though.

The answer was the Priolite kit that was unveiled earlier with Pentax HSS support. They are very good lights on paper, but big and heavy. They remind me of the Profoto lights I already use, but with metal bodies and about 15% larger/heavier. The big problem is, North American dealer support is very, very poor. No Canadian resellers, and B&H and Adorama recently pulled the brand.

So for 645z shooters, no leaf shutters, no plan of leaf shutters, and they don't seem to understand why they need them when I was asking the reps. When I asked about higher flash sync speed with the FF or a firmware update to unlock the hot-shoe on the K3II and other models they didn't understand why I would do that. They just pointed to Priolite and the AFG flash series. Neither of which I think are a suitable option for strobists in North America. Don't get me wrong, the Pentax flashes are fine for what they are, but if you want to use high-powered strobes, especially on location, a higher sync speed is needed/required to compete with the sun in any way shape or form. Sure you could stop down, but if you want that "Dylan Patrick" headshot look you cannot do that without HSS or even the limited 1/160" flash speed. Not without a ND filter anyways, and thats a garbage solution.

Pentax either needs to up the sync speed and unlock the hot shoe (1/250 minimum in my opinion) or they need to get other brands on board for HSS. Elinchrom, Profoto, Paul C. Buff.... If they want to get the strobists.

[RonHendriks1966]

This kind of brings me to an observation in this thread and elsewhere in the forums: people are seeing the 70-200mm f2.8 as too big and heavy to be used as a general purpose telephoto zoom, which is exactly what it is. It's also on par with the Canikon equivalents. This is the problem with FF, Pentaxians are used to small, compact bodies and lenses that are not all too heavy. FF requires these larger, heavier bodies and lenses. So to me... I think many will be disappointed overall because the cameras and lenses will be too heavy for them.

This is basicly the outcome from trying to be the same as Canon/Nikon Instead of walking their own path. You copy things the other two have, but end up being just like them and not finding your unique spot.

[reh321]

This is basicly the outcome from trying to be the same as Canon/Nikon Instead of walking their own path. You copy things the other two have, but end up being just like them and not finding your unique spot.

I've had similar discussions in other contexts here, such as discussing what is needed for a mirror-less camera. The bottom line is that today certain photographers "need", or are believed to "need", certain characteristics, so we just automatically think in those terms. As long as a lens must be uniformly fast (f2.8 or even f/2 over its entire range) with minimal CA, autofocus, twist throw (instead of the old "trombone" throw), etc, etc, etc, it will have to be of a certain size and a certain weight. There is only so much engineers can do within those requirements. Because of serious fungi, recently I dumped the old Vivitar 75-205mm f/3.5 K-mount lens I bought in 1982, so I cannot weigh or measure it, but it felt much less bulky than most of the lenses we talk about today ... but I kind of doubt that users today would tolerate what it did do.

[Wired]

I've had similar discussions in other contexts here, such as discussing what is needed for a mirror-less camera. The bottom line is that today certain photographers "need", or are believed to "need", certain characteristics, so we just automatically think in those terms. As long as a lens must be uniformly fast (f2.8 or even f/2 over its entire range) with minimal CA, autofocus, twist throw (instead of the old "trombone" throw), etc, etc, etc, it will have to be of a certain size and a certain weight. There is only so much engineers can do within those requirements. Because of serious fungi, recently I dumped the old Vivitar 75-205mm f/3.5 K-mount lens I bought in 1982, so I cannot weigh or measure it, but it felt much less bulky than most of the lenses we talk about today ... but I kind of doubt that users today would tolerate what it did do.

Personally I think thats why Pentax enjoys the size advantage because many of the lenses we love in the compact form factors don't have those advanced pieces of glass or the servo/ring motors. So naturally they are MUCH more compact. Once you add the fancy glass elements the lenses get a lot bigger. Look at the Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART compared to almost every other f1.4 50mm out there.. it's massive! But the results you get out of it are mind blowing.

So it's a damned if you do damned if you don't. You want fast AF, you get servo/ring motors. but then the size and weight advantage is gone...

[Class A]

This is the problem with FF, Pentaxians are used to small, compact bodies and lenses that are not all too heavy. FF requires these larger, heavier bodies and lenses.

No, any APS-C lens with the same performance would have the same size and weight as the new FF lenses.

If you will be able to get f/4 zooms for the K-1, they will be no bulkier than your current f/2.8 zooms (and provide the same images).

My biggest disappointment and why my excitement for the FF has dipped is because of the answers on sync speed.

I think we'll be seeing third-party solutions for this.

The Acon triggers already support HSS for Pentax-compatible speedlights and Cactus said they are working on a V6 successor with native HSS / HyperSync support for a lot more flashes / strobes. In other words, there will soon be more alternatives to the PrioLite system.

[Wired]

No, any APS-C lens with the same performance would have the same size and weight as the new FF lenses.

If you will be able to get f/4 zooms for the K-1, they will be no bulkier than your current f/2.8 zooms (and provide the same images).

f2.8 is still f2.8 for light gathering. it may be equivalent in other spec, but its not for light gathering or distortion. but yes, your right when it comes to the glass elements and micro-motors, I forgot to mention thats why the Fuji lenses are bigger than the Pentax ones. the 56mm f1.2 is actually quite big... but oh so sexy.

I think we'll be seeing third-party solutions for this.

The Acon triggers already support HSS and Cactus said they are working on a V6 successor with native HSS support. In other words, there will soon be more alternatives to the PrioLite system.

it would be nice thats for sure. I've already been using a cactus as a pass-through to my Nikon Profoto trigger so I don't have to buy a stupid Profoto basic trigger for $400

[cali92rs]

No, any APS-C lens with the same performance would have the same size and weight as the new FF lenses.

If you will be able to get f/4 zooms for the K-1, they will be no bulkier than your current f/2.8 zooms (and provide the same images).

Isn't that a risk with going with the Pentax FF solution?
How long will it take to get the f4 zooms? I don't know about Nikon, but Canon has FOUR 70-200mm varieties (f2.8 with and without IS, f4 with and without IS). Granted, Pentax doesn't need IS/Non-IS versions, however, I have a feeling that we will be waiting a long time before those arrive.
Much more likely is the consumer zooms (24-1XXmm f3.5-f5.6) and some primes beforehand.

[Zygonyx]

No, any APS-C lens with the same performance would have the same size and weight as the new FF lenses.

If you will be able to get f/4 zooms for the K-1, they will be no bulkier than your current f/2.8 zooms (and provide the same images).
.

Ahem, did you heard about something called image circle ?
That makes a pretty noticable difference btw APS-C and 35mm, in addition - or substraction - of lens max. aperture / speed factor.

---------- Post added 16-11-15 at 13:20 ----------

@ Wired : and so what ? Dont you forget the several other advantage of the Pentax IBIS system, or future sensor properties, or ergonomic innovations versus traditional canikon product lines ?

Plus seriously, please forget any comparison btw m43 and 35mm products, that's odd to say the least...

Regarding synch speed, those guys you spoke to don't absolutely know that at this time, better wait a bit...