Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-10-2009, 11:07 AM   #31
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Tucson, AZ / Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 7
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
I've got the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and it's a wonderful wide angle lens no doubt. But the zoom range is so small on it I basically use it like a very large prime lens. I think the new Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 would better suit me.
Where did you buy Tokina 11-16mm? I've been waiting through their website the availability of this lens with pentax mount.

07-10-2009, 12:29 PM   #32
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by ggad Quote
Where did you buy Tokina 11-16mm? I've been waiting through their website the availability of this lens with pentax mount.
I don't think Tokina still makes any lens in Pentax mount.
07-11-2009, 09:13 AM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by ggad Quote
Where did you buy Tokina 11-16mm? I've been waiting through their website the availability of this lens with pentax mount.
I have it in Nikon mount. As far as I know it's not coming out in Pentax mount. Honestly though, I wouldn't sweat it. I've taken a lot of pics with it in the last few weeks and there is no doubt that it is a great lens; but the zoom range is so small I'd rather just have the Pentax DA14mm f/2.8 or the new DA Limited 15mm. If you prefer zooms I'd probably rather have the DA 12-24mm f/4. It's not as fast, but I rarely use 2.8 on it anyway and the extra 8mm's on top end would make it a walk around lens for me. As it is now I just pull the tokina out of my bag when I want an ultrawide pic, then put it right back in.
07-13-2009, 10:36 AM   #34
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 1,075
To the post who didn't want to spend some $3000-$5000 for a *400/4...no worries you won't have to spend those type of figures...probably closer to $6500 which was the old suggested list on the FA*600/4 back in the '90's. Based on the over $4500 list price on the FA*300/2.8, the 400mm will have to crack well over the $5000 mark. With the new higher pricing, flirting with $7000 is my guess. I also guess that it will be worth every penny! Hope it happens...faked roadmap be damned!

07-13-2009, 03:18 PM   #35
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by Ron Boggs Quote
To the post who didn't want to spend some $3000-$5000 for a *400/4...no worries you won't have to spend those type of figures...probably closer to $6500 which was the old suggested list on the FA*600/4 back in the '90's. Based on the over $4500 list price on the FA*300/2.8, the 400mm will have to crack well over the $5000 mark. With the new higher pricing, flirting with $7000 is my guess. I also guess that it will be worth every penny! Hope it happens...faked roadmap be damned!
A realistic price for a 400/4 is $3000-$4500
07-13-2009, 04:56 PM   #36
Veteran Member
GLXLR's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 686
QuoteOriginally posted by Ron Boggs Quote
To the post who didn't want to spend some $3000-$5000 for a *400/4...no worries you won't have to spend those type of figures...probably closer to $6500 which was the old suggested list on the FA*600/4 back in the '90's. Based on the over $4500 list price on the FA*300/2.8, the 400mm will have to crack well over the $5000 mark. With the new higher pricing, flirting with $7000 is my guess. I also guess that it will be worth every penny! Hope it happens...faked roadmap be damned!
The 400mm f/4 is optically easier to make than a 300mm f/2.8 though.
Hopefully they optimize it for APS-C sensors ONLY (unlike the 60-250mm, 200mm, and 300mm). That way it's smaller+ cheaper (although it will still be a beast!)
07-13-2009, 05:20 PM   #37
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by GLXLR Quote
The 400mm f/4 is optically easier to make than a 300mm f/2.8 though.
Hopefully they optimize it for APS-C sensors ONLY (unlike the 60-250mm, 200mm, and 300mm). That way it's smaller+ cheaper (although it will still be a beast!)

It is true that a 400/4 is "easier" to make than a 300/2.8. But an APS image circle 400/4 would be no cheaper or smaller than an FF 400/4. Thats why 60-250, 200/2.8, and 300/4 all covers FF.....
07-17-2009, 04:01 PM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 886
400/4 would be cool, but I think the next primes they should make should focus on being faster, and getting us the shallower DOf that the FF primes on a FF body have. Like a 135mm F/2 or 300mm f/2.8. These would be equivelent of FF 200mm f/2 and 400mm f/2.8, but awesome lenses that we can't get the effect of.

07-17-2009, 04:15 PM   #39
Veteran Member
kent's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lithuania
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 344
Tokina is the same pentax only for other systems.
07-17-2009, 05:25 PM   #40
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneralBenson Quote
400/4 would be cool, but I think the next primes they should make should focus on being faster, and getting us the shallower DOf that the FF primes on a FF body have. Like a 135mm F/2 or 300mm f/2.8. These would be equivelent of FF 200mm f/2 and 400mm f/2.8, but awesome lenses that we can't get the effect of.
"No one" ever bought such lenses to get shallower DOF (in fact that is a great minus for most using them wide open), but to get a faster shutter speed or making the lens sufficiently fast when using converters.
07-18-2009, 02:41 AM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 489
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
"No one" ever bought such lenses to get shallower DOF (in fact that is a great minus for most using them wide open), but to get a faster shutter speed or making the lens sufficiently fast when using converters.
Wrong, I prefer faster lenses mainly due to the shallower DOF.
07-18-2009, 08:01 AM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Prince George, BC Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 644
QuoteOriginally posted by Cosmo Quote
Wrong, I prefer faster lenses mainly due to the shallower DOF.
I don't think Pal is talking about standard focal lengths where fast lenses would allow shallower DOF. On long tele lenses, they have shallow DOF anyway, so on long lenses I think the faster lenses are for reasons he says.
07-18-2009, 09:29 AM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
"No one" ever bought such lenses to get shallower DOF (in fact that is a great minus for most using them wide open), but to get a faster shutter speed or making the lens sufficiently fast when using converters.
How about Joe McNally who says his 200mm f/2 is his favorite portrait lens and shoots it almost exclusively at f/2, because the depth of field.

Or my friend who is a climbing photographer, and shoots his 135mm f/2 wide open because it further isolates the subject, even though out in the sun, he already has plenty of shutter speed.

If they made a 135mm f/2, I would buy it in a heartbeat, and a 200mm f/2 would be even sweeter on aps-c, but probably hard to build, heavy and expensive.
07-19-2009, 09:05 AM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneralBenson Quote
If they made a 135mm f/2, I would buy it in a heartbeat, and a 200mm f/2 would be even sweeter on aps-c, but probably hard to build, heavy and expensive.
A 200/2 would be $3-4K if Canikon is any indication (theirs are $5-6K). I have a 200/2 lovefest thread in the lens forum

I'd buy a 135/1.8 for $1200 as well...Pentax has the optical formula for it alreadyin the A*135. It just needs a screwdrive connection and a DA chip since the non-ring SDM motors aren't really fast...
07-19-2009, 09:29 AM   #45
Veteran Member
GLXLR's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 686
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneralBenson Quote
How about Joe McNally who says his 200mm f/2 is his favorite portrait lens and shoots it almost exclusively at f/2, because the depth of field.

Or my friend who is a climbing photographer, and shoots his 135mm f/2 wide open because it further isolates the subject, even though out in the sun, he already has plenty of shutter speed.

If they made a 135mm f/2, I would buy it in a heartbeat, and a 200mm f/2 would be even sweeter on aps-c, but probably hard to build, heavy and expensive.
That's b/c they aren't particularly long glass, so they don't create a huge DOF. You really need the speed simply to even GET the shot.

DOF on dSLRs are created from the aperture and FOV. The longer, the more DOF and f/4 or f/5.6 is already cutting it.
I would really like to see a 30mm f/2.... Pentax really needs some "normal" glass.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
da*, f/2.8 and da*, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fisheye MC Zenitar-K (Pentax) 16mm f/2.8 Lens hs57 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 06-09-2009 07:44 AM
For Sale - Sold: FS Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Pentax K mount asecsc4 Sold Items 2 06-05-2009 09:44 PM
For Sale - Sold: Zenitar 2.8/16mm lens Pentax-K chubasco Sold Items 4 05-04-2009 03:05 PM
Pentax A 16mm F/2.8 fisheye Feanor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 12-17-2008 02:29 PM
Pentax 16-50 at 16mm Sample benjikan Post Your Photos! 5 11-25-2007 09:46 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top