[Dan Rentea]

A K-3ii is roughly the same as a 7DmkII. The K-3 has more MP in the sensor, a 20% slower FPS rate and there are many other differences, where one exceeds the other in this or that spec. The Canon probably has better AF for moving objects.

However a K-3ii is about $600 cheaper. You can almost buy a K-1 for the cost of a 7D MKii

7D Mark II uses the old Canon sensor. It has a very good af (far better than K-3 II) and has also a slightly better fps. Build quality is on par on both cameras. If image quality is important, then in my opinion is far better on K-3 II at any ISO. I would probably choose a 80D instead of a 7D Mark II if I have to choose a Canon crop camera. It's not as fast, but has a good af, decent fps and the sensor is far better than the one from 7D Mark II.

If I have to pick a crop camera from Pentax, I would probably wait the K3 Mark III. It may take another 6-8 months until we can see it, but it will probably worth the wait. K-3 II is a very good camera,
especially for its current price point. I wouldn't buy 7D Mark II if image quality is the first priority.

---------- Post added 09-12-17 at 12:37 PM ----------

How is the Canon lens better? The Pentax has more range, looks just as good on it's charts.

Looking at the charts...
The DA* is about the same as the Canon it's graph looks about the same, ibut the Canon lacks the nice tight construction that SR brings, and is WR. In this case the Pentax is a much better value than the Canon for about the same image quality. Unless you have some examples showing what you are tailing about, I'm just going to dismiss this point outright. Being a 60-250 owner, Pentax has the best lens for less money. I find it kind of outrageous that you'd even say such a thing. Maybe you should in the future specify which lenses you are talking about, because if I can look at one pair of lenses and show you to be wrong (one I actually own), I'm guessing a lot of other folks can too.

To me, Canon would be an inferior lens at a higher price for less capability. How does that make Pentax inferior? Let's not get stupid here.

There are a few things that you missed in your comparation.

1. Pentax 60-250mm weights 1230g (hood and tripod foot included), while Canon 70-200mm F4l IS (stabilised version) weights 915g (hood and tripod foot included). It's a 315g difference in the favor of the Canon lens.
2. Pentax 60-250mm costs 1297$ at B&H, while Canon 70-200mm F4l IS (stabilised version) costs 1099$. It's a 198$ difference in the favor of the Canon lens.
3. I know Pentax has weather sealing, but also Canon 70-200mm f4L IS has (I own one).
4. Pentax 60-250mm has very good image quality, but it is slow to focus, has problems with SDM motor, and has some focus breathing (most of the users, myself included has found out that it is actualy a 230mm at its maximum focal lenght)
5. Pentax 60-250mm has:
- Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.2 x 6.6" (8.13 x 16.76 cm)
while Canon 70-200mm has
- Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.0 x 6.8" (7.62 x 17.27 cm)
Canon has internal zooming which for some is better, for others is not and others don't care.
6. Canon 70-200mm is fully compatible with full frame cameras, Pentax 60-250mm has some vigneting on K1 (not something to be worry about, but it is visible)

So, although Pentax 60-250mm is good optically, I have to disagree with you regarding some of your conclusions. Pentax 60-250mm is heavier and more expensive than Canon 70-200mm.

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 09-12-2017 at 05:50 AM.

[normhead]

7D Mark II uses the old Canon sensor. It has a very good af (far better than K-3 II) and has also a slightly better fps. Build quality is on par on both cameras. If image quality is important, then in my opinion is far better on K-3 II at any ISO. I would probably choose a 80D instead of a 7D Mark II if I have to choose a Canon crop camera. It's not as fast, but has a good af, decent fps and the sensor is far better than the one from 7D Mark II.

If I have to pick a crop camera from Pentax, I would probably wait the K3 Mark III. It may take another 6-8 months until we can see it, but it will probably worth the wait. K-3 II is a very good camera,
especially for its current price point. I wouldn't buy 7D Mark II if image quality is the first priority.

---------- Post added 09-12-17 at 12:37 PM ----------



There are a few things that you missed in your comparation.

1. Pentax 60-250mm weights 1230g (hood and tripod mount included), while Canon 70-200mm F4l IS (stabilised version) weights 760g. It's a 470g difference in the favor of the Canon lens.
2. Pentax 60-250mm costs 1297$ at B&H, while Canon 70-200mm F4l IS (stabilised version) costs 1099$. It's a 198$ difference in the favor of the Canon lens.
3. I know Pentax has weather sealing, but also Canon 70-200mm f4L IS has (I own one).
4. Pentax 60-250mm has very good image quality, but it is slow to focus, has problems with SDM motor, and has some focus breathing (most of the users, myself included has found out that it is actualy a 230mm at its maximum focal lenght)
5. Pentax 60-250mm is 168mm long, while Canon 70-200mm is 172mm long. Canon has internal zooming which for some is better, for others is not and others don't care.
6. Canon 70-200mm is fully compatible with full frame cameras, Pentax 60-250mm has some vigneting on K1 (not something to be worry about, but it is visible)

So, although Pentax 60-250mm is good optically, I have to disagree with you regarding some of your conclusions. Pentax 60-250mm is heavier and more expensive than Canon 70-200mm.

Of course the 60-250 is heavier and longer, it's 250mm instead of 200mm (duh).
There are many FF lenses some Canons as well that vignette as much as the 60-250. I use mine on my K-1 without modification.

Pentax 60-250mm is heavier and more expensive than Canon 70-200mm

CANON EF 70-200 F4 L IS ZOOM LENS
(4.2) 4.2
$1,479.99 CAD
Search: CANON 70-200MM F4L IS - Henry's best camera store in Canada : Origin

Pentax 60-250
PENTAX DA* 60-250MM F4 SDM LENS
(5.0) 5.0
$1,399.99 CAD
Search: PENTAX 250 - Henry's best camera store in Canada : Origin

Wrong or misleading on all counts. Once again, your anti-Pentax bias is showing. Although, for you, the slower AF thing is the relevant point. I use the 60-250 a lot as a landscape lens, not so much for wildlife, so we are bound to have different opinions of the lens.

You should stick to discussing Canon gear, where you are usually quite good.

[Dan Rentea]

Of course the 60-250 is heavier and longer, it's 250mm instead of 200mm (duh).
There are many FF lenses some Canons as well that vignette as much as the 60-250. I use mine on my K-1 without modification.



CANON EF 70-200 F4 L IS ZOOM LENS
(4.2) 4.2
$1,479.99 CAD
Search: CANON 70-200MM F4L IS - Henry's best camera store in Canada : Origin

Pentax 60-250
PENTAX DA* 60-250MM F4 SDM LENS
(5.0) 5.0
$1,399.99 CAD
Search: PENTAX 250 - Henry's best camera store in Canada : Origin

Wrong or misleading on all counts. Once again, your anti-Pentax bias is showing. Although, for you, the slower AF thing is the relevant point. I use the 60-250 a lot as a landscape lens, not so much for wildlife, so we are bound to have different opinions of the lens.

You should stick to discussing Canon gear, where you are usually quite good.

Normhead, in Romania and in USA the prices are better for the Canon lens. I gave you the B&H prices and below are the prices from romanian store. I'm not lying regarding weight. At your website it is not mentioned the hood weight, but it is mentioned on Pentax forum review. With hood and tripod foot Pentax 60-250mm weights 1230g. Again, I'm not making up this. It is written on different websites. On your website also say that is an APS-C lens. I know it works on K1 because I've tested it, but it vignettes a bit and you have to crop a little in Lr or PS. The difference in size is almost invisible. The af it is or it isn't a big deal to you, but you have to consider it when you make comparations. So, althrough Pentax 60-250mm is a very good lens, it doesn't have any significant advantage over the Canon lens.



---------- Post added 09-12-17 at 01:20 PM ----------

I use the 60-250 a lot as a landscape lens, not so much for wildlife, so we are bound to have different opinions of the lens.

Then the stabilisation is not needed and then the difference in price is even bigger, because Canon 70-200mm without stabilisation costs $799.99 CAD. Pentax has small prime lenses that makes it apealing to people who want to travel light. And they are cheap also. In this regard, Canon laks behind big time.

[Rondec]

Normhead, in Romania and in USA the prices are better for the Canon lens. I gave you the B&H prices and below are the prices from romanian store. I'm not lying regarding weight. At your website it is not mentioned the hood weight, but it is mentioned on Pentax forum review. With hood and tripod foot Pentax 60-250mm weights 1230g. Again, I'm not making up this. It is written on different websites. On your website also say that is an APS-C lens. I know it works on K1 because I've tested it, but it vignettes a bit and you have to crop a little in Lr or PS. The difference in size is almost invisible. The af it is or it isn't a big deal to you, but you have to consider it when you make comparations. So, althrough Pentax 60-250mm is a very good lens, it doesn't have any significant advantage over the Canon lens.



---------- Post added 09-12-17 at 01:20 PM ----------



Then the stabilisation is not needed and then the difference in price is even bigger, because Canon 70-200mm without stabilisation costs $799.99 CAD. Pentax has small prime lenses that makes it apealing to people who want to travel light. And they are cheap also. In this regard, Canon laks behind big time.

Does the Canon lens come with a tripod foot/collar? The Pentax one is removable if the weight is an issue, but my understanding is that if you want a tripod collar then you have to buy it separately which isn't cheap.

It isn't a big deal, I own the DFA *70-200 and it does have a collar which I removed when I got it and haven't put back on, but it is nice to have if you shoot from a tripod a lot.

[Dan Rentea]

Of course the 60-250 is heavier and longer, it's 250mm instead of 200mm (duh).

You have options at similar weight and focal lenght. At 250mm is at 4.5 to be honest, but it has another 50mm focal lenght. CANON EF 70-300MM F4-5.6 L IS USM LENS 4426B002 - Henry's best camera store in Canada : Origin

[normhead]

Then the stabilisation is not needed and then the difference in price is even bigger, because Canon 70-200mm without stabilisation costs $799.99 CAD. Pentax has small prime lenses that makes it apealing to people who want to travel light. And they are cheap also. In this regard, Canon laks behind big time.

Most of my landscapes are shot hand held. In good light there's no need with the Pentax SR. The only time I use a tripod for landscapes is sunsets after the sun has actually set, when the sun is above the horizon, I still work with SR, not a a tripod, so again, I'm scratching my head.

[Dan Rentea]

Does the Canon lens come with a tripod foot/collar? The Pentax one is removable if the weight is an issue, but my understanding is that if you want a tripod collar then you have to buy it separately which isn't cheap.

It isn't a big deal, I own the DFA *70-200 and it does have a collar which I removed when I got it and haven't put back on, but it is nice to have if you shoot from a tripod a lot.

It doesn't have. But a Tripod Mount Ring costs:
- 143$ at B&H if you want to buy the original version
- 20$ if you want to buy the Phottix Tripod Mount Ring. I bought the Phottix one and it is all metal and it has on the insight some soft material, just like the Canon one.

[Rondec]

It doesn't have. But a Tripod Mount Ring costs:
- 143$ at B&H if you want to buy the original version
- 20$ if you want to buy the Phottix Tripod Mount Ring. I bought the Phottix one and it is all metal and it has insight some soft material, just like the Canon one.

Regardless, it's nice to have one come with the lens,not? Also, comparing weights you probably should factor that in.

[Dan Rentea]

Regardless, it's nice to have one come with the lens,not? Also, comparing weights you probably should factor that in.

I did. Without tripod mount ring it weights 760g and with tripod mount ring it weights 915g (Pentax weights 1230g). If I add the price of the original tripod mount ring, then the price at B&H is 1243$ for Canon, with 54$ cheaper than Pentax 60-250mm.

[normhead]

You have options at similar weight and focal lenght. At 250mm is at 4.5 to be honest, but it has another 50mm focal lenght. CANON EF 70-300MM F4-5.6 L IS USM LENS 4426B002 - Henry's best camera store in Canada : Origin

The edges on the CANON EF 70-300MM F4-5.6 L IS USM LENS are pretty much abysmal compared to the DA*60-250. It's not a quality lens. Should I mention the Pentax 55-300 a similar lens for $549 CAD? Going to a 70-300 type lens, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. How low can we go here? I'll sell you my Sigma 70-300 in Pentax mount for $50 CAD. Beat that!

No one who has used a 70-300 type lens and a 60-250 is going to suggest this comparison. One is well below average, the 60-250 is stellar.

My pont that Canon lenses are not categorically and universally better stands. You have to go lens by lens, and it depends on what you're looking for. You may find Pentax lenses inferior, you may find Canon lenses inferior, And given the overall better value in Pentax bodies, unless you are shooting sports (as in professional athletes, or birds in flight) you get much better value from Pentax. Better IQ for less money.

One thing is for certain, Modern Pentax lenses are useless if you don't have modern Pentax bodies. Don't let that colour your thinking.

[Dan Rentea]

The edges on the CANON EF 70-300MM F4-5.6 L IS USM LENS are pretty much abysmal compared to the DA*60-250. It's not a quality lens. Should I mention the Pentax 55-300 a similar lens for $549 USD. going to a 70-300 type lens, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. How low can we go here?

No one who has used a 70-300 type lens and a 60-250 is going to suggest this comparison. One is well below average, the 60-250 is stellar.

My pont that Canon lenses are not categorically and universally better stands. You have to go lens by lens, and it depends on what you're looking for. You may find Pentax lenses inferior, you may find Canon lenses inferior, And given the overall better value in Pentax bodies, unless you are shooting sports (as in professional athletes, or birds in flight) you get much better value from Pentax. Better IQ for less money.

One thing is for certain, Modern Pentax lenses are useless if you don't have modern Pentax bodies. Don't let that colour your thinking.

Ok, Normhead. I was reffering to the 70-200mm vs 60-250mm. You made some strong affirmations regarding how better value has 60-250mm compared to 70-200mm. Except the focal lenght, there is nothing that makes 60-250mm better than 70-200mm. Except price in your country, which I agree, it's expensive (the Canon lens) compared to romanian and US prices. For the rest... construction is the same (but with the SDM motor problem on the Pentax lens), both have weather sealing, Pentax is havier, the dimensions are almost identical, 70-200mm being faster to focus and 100% compatible to full frame cameras...

If you read the above comments of mine, I said that K-3 II has far better quality than 7D Mark II and I also said that I wouldn't choose 7D Mark II if I have to pick a Canon body. I would pick a 80D which has better image quality, better dynamic range, tilt screen, etc.

I also said that when comes to APS-C cameras, Pentax has a lot of small and cheap lenses that makes the system a lot more apealing to people who want to travel light and who wants also to have good images. Don't jump with conclusions as soon as someone say something that doesn't suits you.

Later edit. I quoted the B&H prices because the OP lives in US.

[Rondec]

Ok, Normhead. I was reffering to the 70-200mm vs 60-250mm. You made some strong affirmations regarding how better value has 60-250mm compared to 70-200mm. Except the focal lenght, there is nothing that makes 60-250mm better than 70-200mm. Except price in your country, which I agree, it's expensive (the Canon lens) compared to romanian and US prices. For the rest... construction is the same (but with the SDM motor problem on the Pentax lens), both have weather sealing, Pentax is havier, the dimensions are almost identical, 70-200mm being faster to focus and 100% compatible to full frame cameras...

If you read the above comments of mine, I said that K-3 II has far better quality than 7D Mark II and I also said that I wouldn't choose 7D Mark II if I have to pick a Canon body. I would pick a 80D which has better image quality, better dynamic range, tilt screen, etc.

I also said that when comes to APS-C cameras, Pentax has a lot of small and cheap lenses that makes the system a lot more apealing to people who want to travel light and who wants also to have good images. Don't jump with conclusions as soon as someone say something that doesn't suits you.

Later edit. I quoted the B&H prices because the OP lives in US.

We are arguing in circles. I will add that the 60-250 is available new for 1206 on Amazon. The price of the Canon 70-200 f4 IS is 1099 there as well.

[Winder]

Hey everyone. First post here, and was looking for some advice. I'm strictly a hobbyist at this point. I don't make my living from photography, nor do I have any intention of making it a career (although at some point I could possibly see selling prints here and there as a supplemental income). I do greatly enjoy the hobby though.



In reality, I almost have exclusively shot with my 14mm and my 35mm lately.
What do I shoot mostly? My main things I do are landscapes, and I've gotten very much into astrophotography.


The 6Dmk2 just came out (with a tilty screen!), so I thought of upgrading to that, but it's been getting hammered in reviews as being generally inferior to the mk1 version. The 5Dmk4 doesn't have the swivel screen either. I've recently gotten to the point where I've been planning on buying more lenses (a good large zoom like the 100-400, fisheye etc), so I'm sort of on the borderline of the "being married to a particular lens system" point, as I've got one really good lens (my 35mm) and a good, but far cheaper lens (my 14mm), with the rest being ones I don't really use, or would be looking to replace anyways (like the 24-105).

Now, the one wrinkle here is that I've also been thinking about getting a crop sensor camera to complement my full frame. Preferably one with a higher shooting rate for sports or action/wildlife shots (and also possibly for close up star/moon shots, given that a nice zoom would get a bit of a bump with the crop factor). I'd imagine the suggestion would be "Get a crop camera in whatever system you decide to stick with". Which would be the best Pentax crop style camera to go with? Pentax has so many crop models that it's hard to figure out which to go with.

If I do a full switch to Pentax, it'll certainly cost me money, but I can mitigate most of the switchover by selling my Canon mount lenses and body. So to quote The Clash...should I stay or should I go?

TIA!

As a couple of quick points:
1. The K-1 is the best landscape, architectural, astrophotography camera you can buy for under $5,000.
2. Ricoh doesn't have a good camera for sports relative to Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, or Olympus. They all have better AF for moving subjects.
3. Canon sensors are average at best.

[normhead]

OK dan, and this is what butting in to someone else's conversation does for you.

You made some strong affirmations regarding how better value has 60-250mm compared to 70-200mm. Except the focal lenght, there is nothing that makes 60-250mm better than 70-200mm

For me it is, and for a lot of other people it is. I was responding to this....

2) Pentax's lenses are inferior to Canon's.

I was not trying to make a case for the pentax being universally better, I was making a case against pentax lenses being universally inferior.
No matter how you twist it, to my mind, my point stands. If you have a different opinion that's fine, I have no issue with that. It's simply unfortunate that you can't seem to comprehend, that in this case, I can say Pentax lenses are better for me, you can say Canon lenses are better for you, and you don't seem to comprehend, we can both be right. The power in your argument is not in trying to negate what I'm saying, but in the whatever merit there may be in those arguments. It doesn't matter what you say, for me the 60-250 is the better lens, and it makes no difference to me what you think. People who work like I do should listen to me. People who work like you do should listen to you. There doesn't have to be a war every time something like this comes up. And you certainly don't have to argue with everything I post from your perspective. Say what you have to say, I'll say what I have to say, people can make up their own mind.

I'd hope in the future you'd read through the thread enough to actually understand what the conversation is about before you type endless paragraphs of unrelated material.

Now if you wish to try and make the point that every Canon lens is better than every Pentax lens, as implied by the post to which i was responding, give it a go. Anything less, and you're arguing with yourself, not me.

[Rondec]

Generally speaking you get what you pay for when it comes to glass. 1000 dollar lenses usually perform better than 200 dollar lenses. Consumer glass is good enough when stopped down.

I would say that Canon has a lot wider selection of glass -- particularly when it comes to the really fast telephoto stuff and also when it comes to specialty lenses. Tough to make blanket statements though about Pentax or Canon glass. I am very pleased with the set of glass I own (which is all Pentax brand), but I am sure similar Canon lenses would do well, as well.