[whatever7]

Yes, we already know how supremely rich you are, being able to add to your gear like crazy. The rest of us don't earn as much.

But in all fairness, $1499 is quite a sum of money to pay for that 60-250. Here's hoping street prices would be fairer for that one.

I doubt the 60-250 will drop much in price. Just take a look at the weight and how much glass Pentax has put in it. It's an expensive lens to make.

If anything, the 55*'s listed price is too high. They can't price it like a 85mm 1.4 and expect people to think that's fair.

[lol101]

Well, the Canon lens has been around for a long time. On the other hand the pentax lens is newly announced and isn't even available yet. Eventually the pentax price will come down.

Actually, I was also thinking about the pricing of the DA* 200f2.8 and 300f4.

In my neck of the woods, I find the DA*200 around 900€ and the DA*300 close to 1100€ while Canon's counterparts are respectively around 700€ and 1200€ (IS version, the non-IS version is around 900€).

Also, I was comparing the 60-250 with the 70-200f4: non IS version around 600€, IS version around 1000€.

Now it's a litlle bit unfair to compare the 60-250 to the non-IS version of the 70-200f4 because the later is not weather sealed and has a smaller range but there is a long way to go between 1300€ and 600€. As far as I can see, the 60-250 street prices can be expected to fall around the 1000-1100€: directly in line with the 70-200f4 IS or 70-200f2.8 non IS: both cover FF, are IS lenses with ring USM and weathersealing.

It is often said that Canon IS lenses are billed around 400-500€ to their happy customers, I had expected that with its clever SR approach, Pentax would be able to offer similar lenses priced at least 200-300€ under the corresponding Canon lenses but apparently this is not the case.

Maybe because Pentax's lenses sell in fewer numbers and are too recent indeed.

[lol101]

You really ought to be comparing the da* 50-135 f/2.8 as that's the equivalent of the 70-200mm canon lens. Many have said it's better than the canon 70-200mm!

"The smc-DA* 50 – 135mm covers the equivalent focal
length of 75 to 205mm in 35mm film format"http://media.pentax.co.uk/downloads/lenses/en/50-135%20specsheet.pdf

I have tested side by side the 70-200f4 IS and DA*50-135 and all I can say is that the DA* is a very good lens while the 70-200f4 is an exceptional one.

Mechanicaly, they are very close but that's about it: the AF is not in the same league and optical performance (on APS-C and FF) are quite clearly in favor of the Canon on all fronts.

To me, Pentax lacks two things in its lens lineup: high quality zooms (todays top of the line is optically equivalent to middle/good quality zooms available from third partie to other makers, and priced accordingly), and low cost primes (50f1,7 for 130€, 85f2 for 350€, 135f2.8, 24f2.8, 28f2.8...)

[eurostar]

Now it's a litlle bit unfair to compare the 60-250 to the non-IS version of the 70-200f4 because the later is not weather sealed and has a smaller range but there is a long way to go between 1300€ and 600€. As far as I can see, the 60-250 street prices can be expected to fall around the 1000-1100€: directly in line with the 70-200f4 IS or 70-200f2.8 non IS: both cover FF, are IS lenses with ring USM and weathersealing.

It is often said that Canon IS lenses are billed around 400-500€ to their happy customers, I had expected that with its clever SR approach, Pentax would be able to offer similar lenses priced at least 200-300€ under the corresponding Canon lenses but apparently this is not the case.

Maybe because Pentax's lenses sell in fewer numbers and are too recent indeed.

I think it's unfair to compare the 60-250 to a 70-200: the first is a 4,2x zoom, the second just a 2,8x. The technichal challenge is quite different.

[ftpaddict]

no. the 'reach' is still the same. it only has the FOV of 320mm. I do not understand why this continues to get mixed up. its just the same as saying 'a 50 is still a 50 is still a 50.' only the FOV is different. the magnification did not increase just because you now have a smaller diagonal image plane.

Ok. Then you only get a faster, stabilized lens for a similar price. Still not fair, IMO.

[thibs]

I have tested side by side the 70-200f4 IS and DA*50-135 and all I can say is that the DA* is a very good lens while the 70-200f4 is an exceptional one.

Mechanicaly, they are very close but that's about it: the AF is not in the same league and optical performance (on APS-C and FF) are quite clearly in favor of the Canon on all fronts.

To compare things apples to apples, one should compare the Canon 70-200 on FF to a 50-135 on APS-C. As for AF, it depends heavily on the camera so it is difficult to compare (altough I'm aware the micro-motor <-> USM thingie, it is only part of the performance).

[thibs]

I doubt the 60-250 will drop much in price. Just take a look at the weight and how much glass Pentax has put in it. It's an expensive lens to make.

If anything, the 55*'s listed price is too high. They can't price it like a 85mm 1.4 and expect people to think that's fair.

It will drop, just as other lenses (17-70 included) did drop. By how much, it is a bit early to judge don't you think?

AS for the DA*55 it is:
1/ a DA* and priced accordingly.
2/ replacement for the FA*85 and priced accordingly.

It's purpose is NOT to be a standard lens. Compare it to the CAnonL 85/1.4 for price and performance will be an apple to apple comparison.

[lol101]

I think it's unfair to compare the 60-250 to a 70-200: the first is a 4,2x zoom, the second just a 2,8x. The technichal challenge is quite different.

So I guess we agree then...

Now it's a litlle bit unfair to compare the 60-250 to the non-IS version of the 70-200f4 because the later is not weather sealed and has a smaller range but there is a long way to go between 1300€ and 600€.

[lol101]

It will drop, just as other lenses (17-70 included) did drop. By how much, it is a bit early to judge don't you think?

AS for the DA*55 it is:
1/ a DA* and priced accordingly.
2/ replacement for the FA*85 and priced accordingly.

It's purpose is NOT to be a standard lens. Compare it to the CAnonL 85/1.4 for price and performance will be an apple to apple comparison.

So I guess you would agree if Pentax should charge 4000€ for the DA*200 f2.8, after all, it is a replacement for the FA* 300f2.8 and should be priced accordingly no?

Anyway, that's just a rethorical question, the announced street price (the lens is already listed in some shops) revolves around the 450€ limit, which is more in line with the lens's value.

To nitpick furthermore, the 55f1.4 on APS-C is NOT a replacement for a 85f1.4 on FF, especially if it is supposed to be a portrait lens, DoF control will not be the same.

Make it a 55f1.0 and you'll have your equivalent... and then you can rightfully price it at 699€!!

[thibs]

So I guess you would agree if Pentax should charge 4000€ for the DA*200 f2.8, after all, it is a replacement for the FA* 300f2.8 and should be priced accordingly no?

Old FA* have ridiculous prices because not produced anymore (old stock) you know that but you don't take into account because it better suits your thinking. Yes it shoud be priced as to replace a 300/2.8 IT is as Pentax works, like or not, this is another debate altogether.

To nitpick furthermore, the 55f1.4 on APS-C is NOT a replacement for a 85f1.4 on FF, especially if it is supposed to be a portrait lens, DoF control will not be the same.

As with other replacements which are equivalent on FOV basis but not DOF. It doesn't stop anyone from using an FF lens on an APS-C camera although the DOF will not be the same as on an FF camera. Your agument is flawed once again.

Why don't you just a buy a cheap Canon 5D and be happy?

Old FA* have ridiculous prices because not produced anymore (old stock) you know that but you don't take into account because it better suits your thinking. Yes it shoud be priced as to replace a 300/2.8 IT is as Pentax works, like or not, this is another debate altogether.



As with other replacements which are equivalent on FOV basis but not DOF. It doesn't stop anyone from using an FF lens on an APS-C camera although the DOF will not be the same as on an FF camera. Your agument is flawed once again.

Why don't you just a buy a cheap Canon 5D and be happy?

Hey, Thibs, cheap or not I don't know but he has one already and for some time now. And once I admired him for not putting a thread like so many before ("Oh, please don't let me go", "Geez, I am so thorn between P and C", "Goodbye forum! and other crap some pull here). He bought the C and lived long and happy with it (no problem with that!).
But now I find more and more that he's trying to match Pentax APS-C with his C FF and this is a mistake. If one NEEDS to make such comparation IMHO he/she needs to do it between C APS-C and Pentax APS-C.

Radu

[vinzer]

Quick question: how long as the 70-200s of Canon been around? Maybe that explains why they could sell their lenses cheaper - broad consumer base plus old lenses that have had their R&D costs recouped already...

[lol101]

Old FA* have ridiculous prices because not produced anymore (old stock) you know that but you don't take into account because it better suits your thinking. Yes it shoud be priced as to replace a 300/2.8 IT is as Pentax works, like or not, this is another debate altogether.



As with other replacements which are equivalent on FOV basis but not DOF. It doesn't stop anyone from using an FF lens on an APS-C camera although the DOF will not be the same as on an FF camera. Your agument is flawed once again.

Why don't you just a buy a cheap Canon 5D and be happy?

I did! (and I am happy)

But tell me something: since when the price of a given lens has been related to its field of view?

The price of a lens is related (primarily) to it's max aperture and focal length: it's the reason why a 300f2.8 is more expensive than a 200f2.8 (try one side by side, you may get a clue).

I am sorry that you don't see it that way but it is the way it is... if you're happy to pay 699€ for a 450€ lens, be my guest!

By the way, I have an FA135f2.8 that I can sell you for 800€: at this price, it's a steal (you can look around, you won't find a cheaper 200f2.8 lens for your APS-C camera).

Deal?

As for equivalence rules... these are only physics... you can tell me that the 55f1.4 is a replacement for the 85f1.4 but not that they are equivalent (and hence warrant the same price).

Anyway, as I said, if it is an excellent quality 55f1.4, this lens is worth 450€ and will be sold at that price point so I guess we are both happy... unless you think it's not enough?

[lol101]

Hey, Thibs, cheap or not I don't know but he has one already and for some time now. And once I admired him for not putting a thread like so many before ("Oh, please don't let me go", "Geez, I am so thorn between P and C", "Goodbye forum! and other crap some pull here). He bought the C and lived long and happy with it (no problem with that!).
But now I find more and more that he's trying to match Pentax APS-C with his C FF and this is a mistake. If one NEEDS to make such comparation IMHO he/she needs to do it between C APS-C and Pentax APS-C.

Radu

I appreciate you comments Radu.

I am not trying to "match" Pentax with Canon and, after being a Pentax user for 15 years, I just KNOW that I will be a Pentax user soon again, whatever they come up with.

It is true that I would like to see some lenses appearing in Pentax's lineup (affordable luminous primes being an example) but that's just a personal opinion, Pentax also has its own unique set of lenses and I am fine with that.

Of course, everyone has preferences and whishes and I have never made a mystery that I'd like to see a FF from Pentax with the corresponding lenses... I know it's not the pragmatic thing to do for Pentax right now but I guess I am allowed to voice that opinion in a Pentax forum no?

This small argument between Thibs and I are just about the pricing as I don't agree with him that Pentax should price their APS-C lens as a function of their coverage on APS-C but rather, as it has always been no matter on which format, as a factor of focal length and max aperture (and of course fit and finish) that's all.

[lol101]

Quick question: how long as the 70-200s of Canon been around? Maybe that explains why they could sell their lenses cheaper - broad consumer base plus old lenses that have had their R&D costs recouped already...

The IS versions are relatively recent (I think that the 70-200f4 Is is the more recent and was released in 2007).

The broad consumer base certainly makes it easier to lower the price.