[Dan Rentea]

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




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


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.

I'm not in "war" with no one. If you look at my comments and based on the OP needs (a full frame for landscape and a crop camera for action), I said that to me a Canon 80D is overall better than 7D Mark II because it has tilt screen, 24mp (7D Mark II has 20), better image quality at higher ISO, better dynamic range.

Regarding the 60-250mm vs 70-200mm, it was my personal conclusion after shooting with both. I didn't bought the 60-250mm in the end despite the fact that it is a sharp lens because:
- 2 of my friends had problems with SDM motor and second hand there were available only a few with the SDM motor canceled
- it has focus breathing, and it varies from copy to copy (the 2 lenses I tested were in reality 220 and 230mm at their maximum focal lenght)
- it was slow to focus (a little slower as I remember than Pentax 300mm f4)
- it vignettes on K1 and you have to crop the image in Lr os PS

There are lenses better on Pentax, D-FA 100mm f2.8 macro being one example of a lens which is better than Canon 100mmL macro lens.

For landscape and for general purposes also, the most logic choice is K1, for a lot of reasons, price included. There are occasions where speed, accuracy of the focus and also fast fps are required, but for 70-80% of the time a K1 will do just fine. Given the fact that the OP is not in a hurry, I would wait (as I said in my first comment) the release of K-3 Mark III. It may be the camera that can satisfy the OP on landscape and also on wildlife/action. Running 2 systems is often expensive...

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 09-12-2017 at 08:49 AM.

[normhead]

I'm not in "war" with no one. If you look at my comments and based on the OP needs (a full frame for landscape and a crop camera for action), I said that to me a Canon 80D is overall better than 7D Mark II because it has tilt screen, 24mp (7D Mark II has 20), better image quality at higher ISO, better dynamic range.

Regarding the 60-250mm vs 70-200mm, it was my personal conclusion after shooting with both. I didn't bought the 60-250mm at the end despite the fact that it is a sharp lens because:
- 2 of my friends had problems with SDM motor and second hand there were available only a few with the SDM motor canceled
- it has focus breathing, and it varies from copy to copy (the 2 lenses I tested were in reality 220 and 230mm at their maximum focal lenght)
- it was slow to focus (a little slower as I remember than Pentax 300mm f4)
- it vignettes on K1 and you have to crop the image in Lr os PS

There are lenses better on Pentax, D-FA 100mm f2.8 macro being one example of a lens which is better than Canon 100mmL macro lens.

For landscape and for general purposes also, the most logic choice is K1, for a lot of reasons, price included. There are occasions where speed, accuracy of the focus and also fast fps are required, but for 70-80% of the time a K1 will do just fine. Given the fact that the OP is not in a hurry, I would wait (as I said in my first comment) the release of K-3 Mark III. It may be the camera that can satisfy the OP on landscape and also on wildlife/action. Running 2 systems is often expensive...

Dan, you don't get it. No one cares you aren't everyone. You can say that, and I still like my 60-250

Because
1. It has a baffle for APS-c, but all of us who have been around the forum for a while know it was designed as a full frame lens, the patent was posted. So that's why people immediately figured out the baffle. IN a way that's better. I can keep my 60-250 as a dedicated APS-c lens or use it as and FF lens that vignettes every now and then, or remove the baffle and have a fully functional FF lens.

2. I shoot landscape and occasionally wildlife. Having 60mm and 200-250 makes more sense to me than fast AF and a considerable percentage of my lenses. My solution to the focus breathing is adding a 1.4 TC or 1.7x for close subjects.

3. The number of times I actually need fast focus is limited to birds, and I don't use if much for birds.

You still don't get it do you? Examine the lens, from your criteria, in no way effects my examination of the lens from my criteria. Are you really so myopic you don't understand that judging a lens as better, for there to be agreement there has to be agreement on what the lens should be?

Look at the edge to edge sharpness of this lens


Can you really not understand that for a landscape shooter with occasional wildlife opportunities, this is almost the perfect lens? Sharp edge to edge for landscape, acceptable reach for wildlife, wildlife is rarely close enough for focus breathing to be an issue. Excellent sharpness centre and edge across it's whole range. It's simply a marvellous piece of engineering.

Honestly, your inability to understand how perfect this lens is for a lot of shooters is truly puzzling. I suspect that your criticism of the lens is based on the fact that Canon makes nothing like it so you never figured out it's strengths and weaknesses. You just dwell on it's weaknesses. You definitely do nothing like that for Canon gear, where it's all "Canon is so great" .

You respond with lenses that are the quality of my F 70-210 which I got for $30. (I'll sell it to you for $50, it's my fastest focussing Pentax lens, you might like it and rate it really highly if that's the only criteria.)

Really, it's disappointing, and sad.

[Rondec]

Dan, you don't get it. No one cares you aren't everyone. You can say that, and I still like my 60-250

Because
1. It has a baffle for APS-c, but all of us who have been around the forum for a while know it was designed as a full frame lens, the patent was posted. So that's why people immediately figured out the baffle. IN a way that's better. I can keep my 60-250 as a dedicated APS-c lens or use it as and FF lens that vignettes every now and then, or remove the baffle and have a fully functional FF lens.

2. I shoot landscape and occasionally wildlife. Having 60mm and 200-250 makes more sense to me than fast AF and a considerable percentage of my lenses. My solution to the focus breathing is adding a 1.4 TC or 1.7x for close subjects.

3. The number of times I actually need fast focus is limited to birds, and I don't use if much for birds.

You still don't get it do you? Examine the lens, from your criteria, in no way effects my examination of the lens from my criteria. Are you really so myopic you don't understand that judging a lens as better, for there to be agreement there has to be agreement on what the lens should be?

Look at the edge to edge sharpness of this lens


Can you really not understand that for a landscape shooter with occasional wildlife opportunities, this is almost the perfect lens? Sharp edge to edge for landscape, acceptable reach for wildlife, wildlife is rarely close enough for focus breathing to be an issue. Excellent sharpness centre and edge across it's whole range. It's simply a marvellous piece of engineering.

Honestly, your inability to understand how perfect this lens is for a lot of shooters is truly puzzling. I suspect that your criticism of the lens is based on the fact that Canon makes nothing like it so you never figured out it's strengths and weaknesses. You just dwell on it's weaknesses. You definitely do nothing like that for Canon gear, where it's all "Canon is so great" .

You respond with lenses that are the quality of my F 70-210 which I got for $30. Really, it's disappointing, and sad.

To be clear Photozone has only tested the lens on APS-C, not on full frame.

[normhead]

To be clear Photozone has only tested the lens on APS-C, not on full frame.

That's why I looked at APS-c tests for both lenses.

The unrestricted criticism of everything Pentax by every second poster is simply unacceptable;e. Most seem to be so biased for Caninkon superiority they don't recognize a great lens when they see one. They just criticize it of it's undeniable and obvious weaknesses, instead of praising it for it's also undeniable strengths. The level of unrestricted unwarranted negativity on the forum is off the charts and getting worse by the day. The above being a case in point.

Just say something good about a Pentax lens and you are subject to pages of responses, none of which make the slightest bit of sense, from a rational perspective. Simply stated, not every lens has to be fast focussing, that is not the main criteria of a good lens. The main criteria of a good lens is the optics. The rest of it is debatable. Some people use fast AF, some don't' It's not a universal requirement. Being able to produce the best picture in appropriate circumstances is.

The 60-250 has the optics. The Canon lenses mentioned don't. Simple as that.

---

Last edited by normhead; 09-12-2017 at 09:18 AM.

[Dan Rentea]

Dan, you don't get it. No one cares you aren't everyone. You can say that, and I still like my 60-250

Because
1. It has a baffle for APS-c, but all of us who have been around the forum for a while know it was designed as a full frame lens, the patent was posted. So that's why people immediately figured out the baffle. IN a way that's better. I can keep my 60-250 as a dedicated APS-c lens or use it as and FF lens that vignettes every now and then, or remove the baffle and have a fully functional FF lens.

2. I shoot landscape and occasionally wildlife. Having 60mm and 200-250 makes more sense to me than fast AF and a considerable percentage of my lenses. My solution to the focus breathing is adding a 1.4 TC or 1.7x for close subjects.

3. The number of times I actually need fast focus is limited to birds, and I don't use if much for birds.

You still don't get it do you? Examine the lens, from your criteria, in no way effects my examination of the lens from my criteria. Are you really so myopic you don't understand that judging a lens as better, for there to be agreement there has to be agreement on what the lens should be?

Look at the edge to edge sharpness of this lens


Can you really not understand that for a landscape shooter with occasional wildlife opportunities, this is almost the perfect lens. Sharp edge to edge for landscape, acceptable reach for wildlife, wildlife is rarely close enough for focus breathing to be an issue. Honestly, your inability to understand how perfect this lens is for a lot of shooters is truly puzzling. I suspect that your criticism of the lens is based on the fact that Canon makes nothing like it so you never figured out it's strengths and weaknesses. You just dwell on it's weaknesses. You definitely do nothing like that for Canon gear, where it's all "Canon is so great" .

Ok, Normhead. You made your point, I made my point. Your reasons are as far as I'm concerned based on the fact that you are a Pentax shooter with limited experience with other systems (as you said on various occasions). Nothing wrong with that. For someone who is interested in both systems, a different opinion than yours may be worth reading, or not. It's the OP choice to read my point of view also. I don't want to go off topic again because of one lens.

To the OP, if you sell the 24-105mm and if you want a very fast lens for action, with excelent IQ also, the 70-200mm f4L IS lens worth every penny. You can use it with 1.4x TC and get 156-448mm on a 80D or with 2x TC and get 224 - 640mm on 80D (Canon has 1.6x crop factor). If you look at my website, 70% of the images were taken with 70-200mm f4L lens.

But again, if you look at Canon for crop cameras, take a closer look at 80D. If you have 6D (the camera I had until 3 days ago), then there is no point in going to K-3 II. K1 will be a solid upgrade from 6D.

Good luck and let us know your decision. Renting a K1 and a 80D is the best solution for your dilema.

[photoptimist]

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.

Isn't the primary reason for buying a zoom is to get a "bagful of primes" and not having to swap lenses as much?

The 60-250 offers nearly 50% greater focal length range over the Canon (4.17X vs. 2.86X = 46% greater range) which seems to make it nearly 50% better on this primary rationale for buy a zoom.

[normhead]

Ok, Normhead. You made your point, I made my point.

Good, let's pack it in for the day.

[DeadJohn]

Good, let's pack it in for the day.

Please don't restart it tomorrow

[Rondec]

I hope the opening poster has answers that help him, even if we end up squabbling on his thread about relatively minor differences in lenses.

[normhead]

Please don't restart it tomorrow

Come on, you know you'd miss it.

[Dan Rentea]

Please don't restart it tomorrow

We are debating lenses and expensive gear. Meanwhile, others don't need Canon, Fuji, Olympus, Nikon, Pentax, Sony... The world is changing. A few more projects like this and we can say goodbye for good to compact cameras.

TIME's Latest Cover Photos were Shot on the iPhone

[surfar]

The world is changing.

Its no longer flat?

[photoptimist]

We are debating lenses and expensive gear. Meanwhile, others don't need Canon, Fuji, Olympus, Nikon, Pentax, Sony... The world is changing. A few more projects like this and we can say goodbye for good to compact cameras.

TIME's Latest Cover Photos were Shot on the iPhone

Given that magazine covers were more often shot with ILCs than compact cameras, it looks like all stand-alone cameras will lose their place in journalism.

Truth be told, the typical subject matter of mainstream magazine covers seldom demands strange focal lengths and doesn't need more than 8 MPix (and that's at 300 ppi). And with the death of print and rise of web, resolution requirements plummet.

Yet does that actually matter? The total number of pro photojournalists was never more than a few percent of the ILC market (maybe less than 1%). It might have been a very visible sliver of the market but it was still a sliver.

Perhaps the biggest change in the world is that the mass market is becoming both fragmented and irrelevant. It no longer matters what "most people want." Companies can now reach tiny little niches via online markets and still sell millions of units.

[skierd]

Dan, please stop trolling. Phones have replaced compacts for most people for quite a few years now. For what it is (small sensor camera with a moderately wide angle lens), the iPhone is actually a really good camera... that also happens to be a communications device. And while it's a very visible space, the cover of a magazine isn't terribly demanding in what it asks of the capture device. It's a relatively low resolution medium at approx. 8"x10", so something simple like an iPhone is perfectly capable of making an image for that in good light. Start asking it to control strobes, shoot in the dark, change focal lengths, or supply the image that becomes a fairly large print without lots of lots of post processing wizardry, and you'll find yourself back at the type of camera's the OP is asking about.

[Dan Rentea]

Dan, please stop trolling. Phones have replaced compacts for most people for quite a few years now. For what it is (small sensor camera with a moderately wide angle lens), the iPhone is actually a really good camera... that also happens to be a communications device. And while it's a very visible space, the cover of a magazine isn't terribly demanding in what it asks of the capture device. It's a relatively low resolution medium at approx. 8"x10", so something simple like an iPhone is perfectly capable of making an image for that in good light. Start asking it to control strobes, shoot in the dark, change focal lengths, or supply the image that becomes a fairly large print without lots of lots of post processing wizardry, and you'll find yourself back at the type of camera's the OP is asking about.

God, even a simple joke with the intend to move a little the discution from this supposed war between brands it is considered trolling? The world indeed has changed. It is no longer flat...