[Fenwoodian]

.
Today, Thom Hogan posted an article on his blog entitled "Stop Complaining (DSLR users)".

In it he reviews the best full-frame digital cameras from Canon, Nikon and Pentax.

He basically says that the Pentax K1 is right up there with the best Canon and Nikon offer, AND the K1 has more features and is a better buy then the Nikon D810. I agree!

[biz-engineer]

K1 has more features and is a better buy then the Nikon D810. I agree!

I agree too. Not so much known from the average photographer. Are you selling yours LoL

[Fenwoodian]

I agree too. Not so much known from the average photographer. Are you selling yours LoL

Ha Ha.

After I had some time to play with my K1, I liked it so much that I sold my Nikon rig and bought a second K1. The only Nikon equipment I have left are some classic old MF lenses which I sometimes use on my Fuji S3 Pro dedicated IR camera.

[Class A]

Today, Thom Hogan posted an article on his blog entitled "Stop Complaining (DSLR users)".

Thanks for the link. Nice to see Thom acknowledging the K-1.

However, I don't quite get this:

"Pentax did redo their 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses in 2015, but I'd say that they're lagging a bit now in terms of state-of-the-art lenses that a serious enthusiast would want with their high-powered cameras.

Perhaps that is true about the 24-70 (Tamron rebadge) but I wonder whether Thom really knows what he is talking about regarding the 70-200. I haven't used one myself but everyone who has seems to be raving about it.

---

Last edited by Class A; 06-24-2017 at 12:24 AM.

[Fenwoodian]

Thanks for the link. Nice to see Tom acknowledging the K-1.

However, I don't quite get this:

"Pentax did redo their 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses in 2015, but I'd say that they're lagging a bit now in terms of state-of-the-art lenses that a serious enthusiast would want with their high-powered cameras.

Perhaps that is true about the 24-70 (Tamron rebadge) but I wonder whether Tom really knows what he is talking about regarding the 70-200. I haven't used one myself but everyone who has seems to be raving about it.

Thom is comparing the Pentax 70-200 against the latest Nikon and Canon offerings.

Nikon just recently released a new 70-200 that costs nearly $2,800 and is getting great reviews.

The Pentax 70-200 is an older design that sells for $1600.

Without having used either lens and based on: the reviews, age of the design, and the price, I'd venture to say that the Nikon lens is a significant step above the older and much less expensive Pentax lens.

Offer me my choice of one of these lenses for free, I'm taking the new Nikon 70-200 lens.

[rod_grant]

Offer me my choice of lenses, I'm taking the new Nikon 70-200 lens

...for the Nikon camera that you just sold??

[Fenwoodian]

...for the Nikon camera that you just sold??

.
If someone gives me a $2700 lens, I'm for sure buying a body to go with it.

I'm continuously buying and selling lenses and camera bodies. Every year or two I dump one system and move to another. At any one time I'm shooting 2 or 3 different systems for different things.

I'm still a huge Nikon fanboy when it comes to their fantastic telephoto primes and zooms. Their auto-focus is excellent and their big glass is fast and accurate. However, I indeed recently dumped my Nikon equipment because I'm no longer shooting fast action Xtreme sports and birds-in-flight.

---

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 06-23-2017 at 10:08 PM.

[Class A]

The Pentax 70-200 is an older design that sells for $1600.

It was introduced in 2015. I wouldn't call that an "older design".

The lens has a very modern construction using 19 elements in 16 groups with 4 SLD elements, 2 ED elements, and 2 SED elements.
Its sharpness peaks at f/4 which is excellent.
I don't think one should deduce quality from the price (although it can be an indicator).

I wouldn't choose between this lens and the new Nikkor without having used or researched both. The only reason to choose the Nikkor straight away is that it would sell for more and I could get the Pentax lens with some spare change left.

[PePe]

Thom is comparing the Pentax 70-200 against the latest Nikon and Canon offerings.

Nikon just recently released a new 70-200 that costs nearly $2,800 and is getting great reviews.

The Pentax 70-200 is an older design that sells for $1600.

Without having used either lens and based on: the reviews, age of the design, and the price, I'd venture to say that the Nikon lens is a significant step above the older and much less expensive Pentax lens.

Offer me my choice of one of these lenses for free, I'm taking the new Nikon 70-200 lens.

A $2800 lens had better be good ! And no doubt the Nikon is a good lens.
However, in what respect is it a significant step above the two-year old Pentax?

[Kerrowdown]

I liked it so much that I sold my Nikon rig and bought a second K1

Safe to say then the K1 is a winner with you then.

[Mr Bassie]

I believe this is the first time Thom has even acknowledged the existence of the K-1.

[normhead]

Safe to say then the K1 is a winner with you then.

It seems to be a winner with just about everyone who has touched one.

[Kerrowdown]

It seems to be a winner with just about everyone who has touched one.

I reckon that's true enough, kinda happy with mine.

[RobA_Oz]

…However, I don't quite get this:

"Pentax did redo their 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses in 2015, but I'd say that they're lagging a bit now in terms of state-of-the-art lenses that a serious enthusiast would want with their high-powered cameras.

Perhaps that is true about the 24-70 (Tamron rebadge) but I wonder whether Thom really knows what he is talking about regarding the 70-200. I haven't used one myself but everyone who has seems to be raving about it.

I think "they're lagging" in that statement refers to Pentax as a brand, not the 24-70 and 70-200 lenses.

[Class A]

I think "they're lagging" in that statement refers to Pentax as a brand, not the 24-70 and 70-200 lenses.

Very good point. That's probably what he meant but expressed ambiguously.