[Samsungian]

You're right, I thought 70-200mm f4 IS was older than that. The f4 lens without IS dates back to 1999. I think other than IS addition the two are identical. Could be wrong as I only added Eos Digital & new eos lenses to my bag in 2008, which was in response to K20D price being announced at $1,299.

Canon Camera Museum | Camera Hall - EF Mount

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.

[regken]

I appreciate you comments Radu.
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.

Although I fully agree with you, I think what we might be seeing here is the fine hand of Hoya's desire for higher profitability showing itself. If that philosophy also embraces better QC and IQ that is fine with me. I'm hoping the long delay of the 60-250 is the result of Hoya insisting on those qualities being met before release. If, as some of us suspect, Hoya's intent is to position Pentax as a niche player the days of Pentax being lower priced have come to an end.

[klika]

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).

FYI , 70-200 f/4 IS is even better on FF body .........

[thibs]

FYI , 70-200 f/4 IS is even better on FF body .........

FYI I don't care about Canon being better for this or for that. If anybody has an ounce of honesty, the comparison has to be made in thses conditions.
If it makes Pentax look worse, bad for them.

I'm not used to turn things how it better fits my opinions. Do you?

[lol101]

FYI I don't care about Canon being better for this or for that. If anybody has an ounce of honesty, the comparison has to be made in thses conditions.
If it makes Pentax look worse, bad for them.

I'm not used to turn things how it better fits my opinions. Do you?

That's actually what I did: 70-200f4 on FF vs K20D + 50-135f2.8: equivalent settings (pretty much like a 85f1.4 on FF is equivalent to a 55f1.0 on APS-C... oups! Did I say that out loud?!? ).

As Klika said, the differences in performances are clear but it has more to do with the exceptional quality of this particular Canon lense than anything else and the Pentax lens is priced accordingly to its performances so it doesn't really make Pentax look bad IMO.

Comparisons made with primes show more mitigated results (FA 50f1.4 vs 85f1.8 USM gives very equilibrated results at low ISO for instance and costs are very similar).

[thibs]

LOL101, I should have quoted the post I was responding to which was Klinka's post which implied that somehow I was trying to compromise reality for showing Pentax in good light.

BTW, I didn't know you indeed bought a Canon 5D and if anything, it shows that you act like you think (I'm pointing to usual moaners who speak but who never act). Which is a good point IMO

As for the lenses price debate, I do not think Pentax should price solely based on FOV, that would be indeed very stupid. But taking into account the intended purpose and construction of a lens when talking about prices is flawed (IMO).

The DA*55/1.4 is supposed (again you may not agree but that is not the point) to replace the FA*85 on Pentax APS-C cameras. It is a * lens, has the built which comes with it and (we'll have to check actual performance) is supposedly designed as a portrait lens (and as such will be optimised for close focus performance, not general all arounf performance like a standard lens).
Wether that lens will stand against competition is anyone guess before someone tries it.
If you want a standard 50mm, buy an FA50. It is just that, and it is dirt cheap.

[Adam]

FF Pentax would be lovely...but that's nothing more than a hope IMO

85mm was an ideal portrait/walkaround focal length on film (and it's not bad on APS-C either); looks like I'll have to experiment with the 55mm once it's available!

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[ftpaddict]

That's actually what I did: 70-200f4 on FF vs K20D + 50-135f2.8: equivalent settings (pretty much like a 85f1.4 on FF is equivalent to a 55f1.0 on APS-C... oups! Did I say that out loud?!? ).

I really can't agree with this equivalence thing. You'll still be get faster shutter speeds with the 50-135 because, as brilliant as the EF 70-200 f/4 may be, it's only f/4.


Where I'm going with this: pricing based on equivalence is not fair. It should just be according the amount of glass and the complexity/quality of the build. (+ a little extra, to make a profit).
It's unacceptable for a non-stabilized lens to be more expensive than a stabilized equivalent, simply because it looks like a bigger zoom on an APS-C body.

[thibs]

I really can't agree with this equivalence thing. You'll still be get faster shutter speeds with the 50-135 because, as brilliant as the EF 70-200 f/4 may be, it's only f/4.


Where I'm going with this: pricing based on equivalence is not fair. It should just be according the amount of glass and the complexity/quality of the build. (+ a little extra, to make a profit).
It's unacceptable for a non-stabilized lens to be more expensive than a stabilized equivalent, simply because it looks like a bigger zoom on an APS-C body.

And intended purpose (IMO). Comparison should indeed be made with a 70-200/2.8.

[ftpaddict]

And intended purpose (IMO). Comparison should indeed be made with a 70-200/2.8.

Comparison should be made with a non-stabilized EF 50-135 f/2.8 USM. Except it doesn't exist, so we can't.

[ftpaddict]

Perhaps a little amusing is the following comparison:

Pentax | SMCP-DA* 300mm f/4 ED (IF) SDM Autofocus Lens | 21760 - $1,079

Canon | Telephoto EF 300mm f/4.0L IS Image Stabilizer | 2530A004 - $1,059

So a stabilized lens is cheaper than a non-stabilized lens?

[thibs]

Comparison should be made with a non-stabilized EF 50-135 f/2.8 USM. Except it doesn't exist, so we can't.

No..............

[thibs]

Perhaps a little amusing is the following comparison:

Pentax | SMCP-DA* 300mm f/4 ED (IF) SDM Autofocus Lens | 21760 - $1,079

Canon | Telephoto EF 300mm f/4.0L IS Image Stabilizer | 2530A004 - $1,059

So a stabilized lens is cheaper than a non-stabilized lens?

Which has no point since the DA* is supposedly used on a stabilised body anyway.

[Fototim]

Pentax | SMCP-DA* 300mm f/4 ED (IF) SDM Autofocus Lens | 21760 - $1,079
Canon | Telephoto EF 300mm f/4.0L IS Image Stabilizer | 2530A004 - $1,059

So a stabilized lens is cheaper than a non-stabilized lens?

The prize of the DA* probably ain't stabilized yet. After a year or two this picture might change, a lot.

[Kunzite]

Yep. The EF 300mm f/4 IS USM was launched on... 1997? Our DA* is too new. And weather sealed