Originally posted by bossa Regarding the 60-250 not being all that great on a FF: What is the point of that argument? The lens is marketed as a APS-C lens AND there's no Pentax FF DSLR.
You know the point of my argument. I've actually written that one out (also, look at the thread title). Why are you taking things out of context? >>
Quote: There's only a couple of reasons to deliberately judge something out of context and they are that you are either an idiot or you enjoy stirring people.
Quote: I like my 60-250 very much most of the time but will admit it does need stopping down to F7.1 to get razor sharp results. But then again, my Nikon 70-200 VRII doesn't get sharp in the middle until F4 and the edges don't get there until F8 and that lens is very highly rated too. The Nikon cost me 3 grand and I paid 900 for the Pentax.
A 200/2.8 uses larger lenses (exactly that, 200mm/2.8, 250/4 is ~8.9mm smaller, which is quite a lot more surface area), it has VR which needs even more glass. And that glass is expensive. So, let's look at something more comparable. The Canon 70-200/4 comes to mind, and that one is damn sharp wide open.
Most lenses are sharp at f/8, especially the better ones, aren't they.
Now step back for a second. All you guys want Pentax FF. Such a camera will likely have a high resolution sensor. Wouldn't you guys want to have glass that's just perfect for that? With the 645D Pentax has seen that old film lenses don't neccessarily work great for digital. I'd prefer a new set of digital FF-optimized lenses ready as soon as they roll the body out.