[Priyantha Bleeker]

The DA Star lenses are way too expensive for a Pentax platform - if I need to pay so much for the lenses, Pentax loses its best advantage over Canonikon - THE PRICE.

either way, the 16-50 is not long enough, and the 50-135 is not wide enough....

Well, I hoped that they were a bit more expensive and both were complete only-Pentax design's.

And about the DA* 16-50 which I do own;
With a bit better performance wide-open and distortion wise and less CA please.
And a internal zoom, OR a proper hood which is mounted on the outside of the lense and not on the front-element. And a reverse 'outer zoom' like the Canon 24-70 L F2.8, for the best use of the hood and still always have the same 'format' from outside with hood attached.

But the DA* 16-50 isn't bad I do use it nearly all the time it is a nice lens to use

[Mister Guy]

The DA Star lenses are way too expensive for a Pentax platform - if I need to pay so much for the lenses, Pentax loses its best advantage over Canonikon - THE PRICE.

either way, the 16-50 is not long enough, and the 50-135 is not wide enough....

You are correct.

$1300 Canon L glass + $1,199.00 Canon 50D = $2500 kit [i](Edit: Covering the 24 to 70mm range, of course)

versus

$700 K20D + $660 DA* 16-50 + $700 K20D + $750 DA* 50-135 = $2800 kit. (Edit: Covering the 16 to 135 range, fully weather sealed)


Hmm, you're right. You'll need to either use a K10D as your back up body or buy one of those K20D's used.

Or, you know, swap lenses occasionally.

[quarc]

I have read several threads in Canon forum where owners are complaining about AF a lot. It is fast, but it is not accurate and consistent. I have several tests where people focus on an objecet several times (letting the camera refocus on the hand in between) and the focus is quick but only 1 out of or even 1 out of 10 have focus spot on, and for the others some are backfocus and some are front focus. I think most of the threads I read was regarding the 5D and 5DII so might be different with 50.

I do think Pentax sometimes claims to have found focus even though it has not in very dark situations, but except from that I think the focus is very consistent. Shooting moving objects I think the weakest spot as I don't see much of prediction in what Pentax is doing, but the normal AF speed is quite fast.

[thibs]

The best as for knowing the potential of Pentax AF performance would be to try this kit:

• K-7
• 16-50/2.8 (SDM)
• 50-135/2.8 (SDM)
• and/or 60-250/4 (SDM)

I agree the argument about price is fallacious and agree with Yohan Pamudji unless you have other requesites. If you need FF, OK but I doubt you need it for weddings.

I won't deny Canon AF's better, at least compared to current Pentax models, considering moving objects. If you really want to know more, try the kit above, otherwise I'm sure you will be satisfied with Canon (your wallet won't be but that's another point IMO).

[thibs]

Well, I hoped that they were a bit more expensive and both were complete only-Pentax design's.

Actually those are Pentax designs (Pentax owns the optical blueprint patents).
If you're talking about availability in other mounts, sure they are indeed available as Tokinas although the optics is really the only thing in common.

[sveinmb]

You are correct.

$1300 Canon L glass + $1,199.00 Canon 50D = $2500 kit

versus

$700 K20D + $660 DA* 16-50 + $700 K20D + $750 DA* 50-135 = $2800 kit.

Wow - so now Canon has got a 16-135mm f2.8 L-lens in their lineup, for just 1200 usd ? Last time I checked they only had a 24-105mm f4 ... Impressive - most impressive !

[Mister Guy]

I won't deny Canon AF's better, at least compared to current Pentax models, considering moving objects.

Same as their high ISO performance. It's different, but better depends heavily on your needs. Canon appears to be faster and less accurate, just like their noise reduction is heavier and trades detail for noise removal. Pentax is more accurate but gets a lock in situations where Canon and Nikon both give up, and their noise reduction leaves more noise but also more detail.

It's much more a matter of taste and needs than people realize, because they have a nasty habit of counting how many times the shutter fires and not how many pictures are usable on the card.

[sveinmb]

The best as for knowing the potential of Pentax AF performance would be to try this kit:

• K-7
• 16-50/2.8 (SDM)
• 50-135/2.8 (SDM)
• and/or 60-250/4 (SDM)

Swap the zooms with a couple of DA limiteds and you'll have the speed as well

[Gooshin]

Swap the zooms with a couple of DA limiteds and you'll have the speed as well

what speed?

[Mister Guy]

Swap the zooms with a couple of DA limiteds and you'll have the speed as well

Trade the 60-250 with a DA*300 and a Sigma 10-20 HSM and my wallet just ducked and ran and hid.

[BBear]

Actually those are Pentax designs (Pentax owns the optical blueprint patents).
If you're talking about availability in other mounts, sure they are indeed available as Tokinas although the optics is really the only thing in common.

My understanding of what he meant to say is that he would be willing to pay more for these lenses and keep them ONLY available for K-mount, instead of Pentax opening the design, making some extra sales on them and "allegedly" reducing the cost of the lenses.


I somehow feel the same about the 10-17 fisheye, because Pentax is the only with this fisheye zoom.

[Enc0der]

are you on crack?

16-50 is 24-75 in ff terms, and 50-135 is 75-202 in ff terms

the two most standardized zoom ranges in photography!

remind me again why all of a sudden you feel this isnt "good enough"?

I couldn't care less about the ff terms. simply couldn't care less.

I use 28-75mm on my CROP BODY (obviously), and it is the best range for me.
16-50 is still 16-50 !
If you refer to 16-50 as 24-75, so my suitable range is 42-112 !!

You can't convert the range of 2 lenses (DA Star) but compare them to the third one (Tamron 28-75) WITHOUT converting its range too...

[Enc0der]

$1300 Canon L glass + $1,199.00 Canon 50D = $2500 kit [i](Edit: Covering the 24 to 70mm range, of course)

versus

$700 K20D + $660 DA* 16-50 + $700 K20D + $750 DA* 50-135 = $2800 kit. (Edit: Covering the 16 to 135 range, fully weather sealed)

This is very nice, but you are forgetting the fact that the K20D sucks on AF and general performance.

[lol101]

Canon appears to be faster and less accurate

; not true in my experience, it's just faster with USM lenses (but a fairly common myth on these fora). I have now shot a Ds, a K10, a K20, two 30D, two 5D and a 40D with a host of lenses, maybe I am just very lucky... maybe we can conclude that Pentax slow AF and Canon inaccurate one are both internet hype of some kind...

Pentax gets a lock in situations where Canon and Nikon both give up

; true in my experience, Pentax' AF detectivity is perhaps the best out there.

NR? Well, NR is NR and if you use it you loose details no matter what brand you use so better look at raws and if you do, you'll be hard pressed to find any differences in the most recent crops of APS-C cameras, the K20 being effectively up there with all the bests.

[Gooshin]

I couldn't care less about the ff terms. simply couldn't care less.

I use 28-75mm on my CROP BODY (obviously), and it is the best range for me.
16-50 is still 16-50 !
If you refer to 16-50 as 24-75, so my suitable range is 42-112 !!

You can't convert the range of 2 lenses (DA Star) but compare them to the third one (Tamron 28-75) WITHOUT converting its range too...

your "suitable range" was never covered during photographys most prominant period.

so really, you LUCKED OUT that APS-C came around (as did many, mostly the ones that get head aches trying to work out the FF/APS-C comparisons)

nothing more.

If you feel that Pentax's current lens selection does not fit your shooting style... well, nothing one could do about there.

you can try the pentax 35-135 F3.5-f4.5 FA lens (and some variations), but its not quite as fast, also lacks SDM and Weather Sealing...