[mee]

Please stay on topic folks, and not post any comments of a personal nature. Thanks.

Yes back to the discussion at hand.. we can all just agree to disagree where there is disagreement.

---

Last edited by Racer X 69; 06-11-2017 at 08:21 PM. Reason: Inappropriate comment.

[cyberjunkie]

I'm all for theories, Paolo, but primes of less than 200mm are almost irrelevant to wildlife and sports shooters.

Of course they are not.
Though a fast (in both ways) 85mm prime would be perfect for event/concert photography, if you happen to be close enough to the stage.
I remember taking pictures of a famous dutch rock singer (a friend of mine organized the event). She jumped around like spring loaded. The tracking couldn't cope. After reviewing the first batch of pictures i decided to go for manual. Prefocusing and keeping fingers crossed... often she was faster than my brain + finger!
I had my K-5 II. Simply it couldn't cope. In AF.S was worse.
Many portraits were off, either not sharp, or with the wrong framing because the AF wasn't fast enough, while full figure shots, using shorter focals, were fine (either in AF or setting the wide angle for hyperfocal).

Just an example to show that even referring exclusively to short telephotos, a lens that doesn't hunt and a fast/reliable AF tracking can be put to good use.
Maybe my K-1, together with the Sigma's with internal motor i use now, would be much better.
Can't say. No counterproof. I doubt i'll find the same conditions anytime soon

cheers

Paolo

[clackers]

Of course they are not.
Though a fast (in both ways) 85mm prime would be perfect for event/concert photography,

You can't go out birding or shooting field sports with just an 85mm lens, Paolo!

It's short, and inflexible.

A 70-200 like the Pentax D FA is standard issue for that length.

[lytrytyr]

Can you point out to any piece of FUD I've spread lately (or ever, for that matter)?

How about this from late April, with reference to the Q system:

I'm sorry, folks, but I believe Ricoh Imaging already has the data (past sales) to decide.

[Kunzite]

And where is the FUD?
We're talking about a system for which the last camera was launched almost 3 years ago, and the last lens, more than 3 and half years ago - with no indication of a new product this year; and I'm not even saying it's dead. Where is the FUD?

[Zygonyx]

Are you speaking about 645 system ?

[Uluru]

I'm all for theories, Paolo, but primes of less than 200mm are almost irrelevant to wildlife and sports shooters.

135/2 is a lens that is phenomenal for all genres.
Wildlife too, especially for animals and flora that live under the tree canopy (B), that is, on the forest floor (D) and the understory (C).


Here is legendary Minolta 135/2



I would not mind one for Pentax mount.
That would be the king of medium telephoto primes, and a lens to die for.
Samyang made one for Pentax, but that is manual focusing lens. However, it received all very good reviews.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 06-12-2017 at 12:21 AM.

[Pentaxke]

135/2 is a lens that is phenomenal for all genres.
Wildlife too, especially for animals and flora that live under the tree canopy (B), that is, on the forest floor (D) and the understory (C).


Here is legendary Minolta 135/2



I would not mind one for Pentax mount.
That would be the king of medium telephoto primes, and a lens to die for.
Samyang made one for Pentax, but that is manual focusing lens. However, it received all very good reviews.

If you can find one at a reasonable price, A* 135 f/1.8 is hard to beat. Manual focus only though; I wonder why they don't rebatch it in AF mount...

[clackers]

135/2 is a lens that is phenomenal for all genres.
Wildlife too, especially for animals and flora that live under the tree canopy (B), that is, on the forest floor (D) and the understory (C).

Please show me your wildlife photos taken with it, Uluru, or you're just making this up as usual.

I do not shoot wildlife with less than a 300mm prime on APS-C. I will usually add a 1.4 TC to it.



An 85mm prime like the highly praised Canons is incredibly slow to focus, according to owners.

[camyum]

Is there any news about a prime lens with 24 or 25mm focal length? or will i have to buy a sigma?
When will Pentax start to produce their very own lens designs?
Despite the 150-450 and the 70-200 everything seems to be "outsourced"...
Any news about PLM(or double PLM) may be incorporated in the 85mm lens already??

[D1N0]

Is there any news about a prime lens with 24 or 25mm focal length? or will i have to buy a sigma?

It's on the roadmap (a 20 or 24mm 1.4)

When will Pentax start to produce their very own lens designs? Despite the 150-450 and the 70-200 everything seems to be "outsourced"...

And the 28-105 F3.5-5.6. That's three home made and two outsourced. Hardly Everything... The primes will be Pentax designs.

Any news about PLM(or double PLM) may be incorporated in the 85mm lens already??

It won't be. PLM is not for heavy glass elements.

In general If there is news it will be on the forum. If you need to ask, there is no news.

[jatrax]

In general If there is news it will be on the forum. If you need to ask, there is no news.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This.

[Uluru]

Please show me your wildlife photos taken with it, Uluru, or you're just making this up as usual.

I do not shoot wildlife with less than a 300mm prime on APS-C. I will usually add a 1.4 TC to it.
An 85mm prime like the highly praised Canons is incredibly slow to focus, according to owners.

"85?mm? That's not a lens; this is a lens !" (pulls behind his back a 150-450 or 560mm)

Australian bush is another story, and 300mm+TC you use is perhaps about right, because the bush is broken up, trees and treetops are broken up, and animals hear and smell from a mile someone's approaching because of the ever present wind.

If stuck in an European forest, 300mm is often way too long. 200mm and under is better, because forests are much denser.

However, commenting on fast 135mm is another problem because few tried it in Pentax mount, and is likely we can argue about it forever, because a good fast 135mm on Pentax is long gone and will never come again. It is rarer that jarra-jarra bird, the meat eater, known to grab little children.

[clackers]

If stuck in an European forest, 300mm is often way too long. .

I'm sure our US and European forum wildlife shooting members have worked out by now you simply don't know what you're talking about.

See how far you get arguing with UK Gary Chalker's FA* 600mm f4 or Normhead's 300mm plus 1.7TC, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong, I've never seen you post a picture or a comment or Like in the wildlife threads. I don't think you appreciate their work and are out of touch with how things are.

[timautin]

Australian bush is another story, and 300mm+TC you use is perhaps about right, because the bush is broken up, trees and treetops are broken up, and animals hear and smell from a mile someone's approaching because of the ever present wind.

If stuck in an European forest, 300mm is often way too long. 200mm and under is better, because forests are much denser.

Don't take it bad Uluru, but...



If every wildlife shooter is using 300mm+ lenses, there a very good reason. Give us an unlimited budget, we'll probably all choose a 500mm+ lenses to use in hides, plus a lighter option to use when walking (150-450, 150-600, 300 f4, 70-300). The farther is your subject, the higher are the chances that it will show you a natural behavior, and the better will be your pictures.

Most important factors when choosing the focal length is not the environment, but rather the mistrust and size of your subjects. In Australia (where I've been for 3 months, but I'm from France), most animals have very little to no mistrust, but still, go taking a good fairy-wren picture with a 85/135mm and share it with us, that will be quite interesting . But yes, you can shoot a dingo on Fraser Island with a 85mm, or even a 24mm, but that's not a representative example of what wildlife photography is.

For a lot of us (well, at least in France, where animals mistrust is huge :'( ), this is wildlife photography: