[Spex]

Why don't you buy Canon 7D?! It's great camera and weather sealed; Canon claims the same degree of resistance as EOS 1N model, which was at the top of EOS line at the time it was produced... And about optics... well, they are mostly primes, because at any other type of lens Pentax is not SO MUCH better than other manufacturers...

Lenses not labeled WR is not WR, FA43 included.

As a note to the OP, also all the DA* (DA Star) lenses are weather sealed and even better than the newer and cheaper lenses labeled "WR".

[str8talk83]

As a note to the OP, also all the DA* (DA Star) lenses are weather sealed and even better than the newer and cheaper lenses labeled "WR".

Thanks for the note.


I think the main reason that I considered going with a two system approach is that I like a few of the limited primes that Pentax has which are considered expensive for a Pentax shooter, but are not badly priced to me compared to the canon L primes. Canon definitely has the dof advantage overall with many more fast f/1.2, 1.4 etc lenses. Pentax has a lot of great lenses that aren't as fast but deliver excellent image quality. I'm a big fan of the rendering provided by the FA 31, 43, 77. There are a few very nice other primes out there as well, but those definitely seem to be the gems of the lineup.

[str8talk83]

Why don't you buy Canon 7D?! It's great camera and weather sealed; Canon claims the same degree of resistance as EOS 1N model, which was at the top of EOS line at the time it was produced... And about optics... well, they are mostly primes, because at any other type of lens Pentax is not SO MUCH better than other manufacturers...

I probably will end up with a 7Dl. When I started looking into running two systems I didn't realize how much of a step down in AF I would be getting. I was thinking the K20D would be fairly close so I could do pretty much a straight swap and not be losing much. Now I've learned that I would have to get a K-5 to compete, which limits my uses of the Pentax bodies since I do mostly wildlife. I'm sure that they would all do fine with stationary photos like flower, street photography, candids etc.

After doing the research, it does seem like Canon has the better zoom lenses. Some of the IS lenses are quite a bit more expensive, but the main lenses that I would be looking at aren't much different in price. The 60-250 and 300 prime look really nice. 50-135 looks good too.

[robjmitchell]

I didn't realise you had 17-55/2.8, thats one fine lens. The pentax 16-50/2.8 is not as sharp as I would like for landscape but is extremely nice when it come to colour and rendering. Its a fantastic low light/narrow dof zoom lens, it just kind of defeats the purpose of a weather sealed landscape lens.
Maybe 7d and plastic bags is the best bet if you want weather sealing

[robjmitchell]

If its limited your interested in rather than weather sealed kit then the new K-r might also be an option, theres nothing like a stabilised limited on a great high ISO body. You lose pentaprism and dual dials though. I love my 43ltd although it has an interesting personality Totally amazing sharpness and rendering from f2.8 but wide open it only just sharp enough for portrait in the middle and has schitzo bokeh with contrasty backgrounds

[str8talk83]

If its limited your interested in rather than weather sealed kit then the new K-r might also be an option, theres nothing like a stabilised limited on a great high ISO body. You lose pentaprism and dual dials though. I love my 43ltd although it has an interesting personality Totally amazing sharpness and rendering from f2.8 but wide open it only just sharp enough for portrait in the middle and has schitzo bokeh with contrasty backgrounds

I don't know if I could lose the dual dials or not...I'm all manual all the way. I suppose that I could learn to adjust though and the body would be significantly cheaper.

I read photozones review of the 43 and it does seem to have some strange bokeh sometimes. I really like the look of the 77 images for portraits.

[str8talk83]

I didn't realise you had 17-55/2.8, thats one fine lens.

It is quite impressive. The best zoom lens that I have owned. Great sharpness, even wide open corner to corner. Autofocus is excellent for an f/2.8 lens and acquires focus in even low lighting. Makes a great landscape lens if you don't want ultrawide and is awesome for event work.

[Big G]

I REALLY want a 17-55 / 2.8, the resolution figures are very impressive right from f/2.8 and with IS built into the lens and super snappy AF then I really can't find flaw. Mind you it's quite expensive, I may sell up my 15-85mm to contribute to the 17-55.

[str8talk83]

I REALLY want a 17-55 / 2.8, the resolution figures are very impressive right from f/2.8 and with IS built into the lens and super snappy AF then I really can't find flaw. Mind you it's quite expensive, I may sell up my 15-85mm to contribute to the 17-55.

It's a personal preference thing. Some people really like having the extra range of the 15-85. I prefer having constant f/2.8 throughout the range. I do like the build of the 15-85 better. New EF-S build is pretty decent. 17-55 is okay (much better than the 28-135 I started with) but should be better at the price point IMO. You should be able to get a used one for 800-850 if you go that route. Keep an eye out on fredmiranda.com and canon photography on the net forum.

[wlachan]

I read photozones review of the 43 and it does seem to have some strange bokeh sometimes. I really like the look of the 77 images for portraits.

The Limited lenses aren't w/o their flaws. Like the FA43 which was rated poorly in the film days, but now very highly on digital. The thing is that back then we shoot film, and it shows more barrel distortion and not quite remarkable sharpness toward the edges. On APS-C, both issues aren't obvious because the outer portion is being cropped. Still, it is quite soft wide open. One stop down, sharpness is much improved. Also, this lens has bright ring bokeh yet with 3D quality (if you believe such expression). The bright ring bokeh might be annoying when the OOF background gets busy.

The border sharpness of FA77 is rather low until f4 on digital. It is also known to produce PF at high contrast edges. A taiwanese website tested it against the EF85/1.8 which beats the FA77 in every area optically. Still, it is one of the rare AF lens which MF nicely and pleasant to use, despite its flaws.

The FA31 is probably the rare gem from Pentax. It contains floating design and glass AL, both very rare for Pentax lenses. Optically it is good. The only issue is that the focus ring is kind of loose due to the way it was designed structurally. The rendering reminds me my old Sigma 24/2.8 which is both sharp and smooth. I have no such experience with any other Pentax lenses I have used, even the 3 EF lenses I have (but this is rather subjective).

[str8talk83]

Interesting info. Why have you chosen to shoot with both Pentax and canon? Is it because you started out with Pentax and have a lot of lenses that you wanted to still use or is there some quality that the Canon systems lacks for your uses?

The Limited lenses aren't w/o their flaws. Like the FA43 which was rated poorly in the film days, but now very highly on digital. The thing is that back then we shoot film, and it shows more barrel distortion and not quite remarkable sharpness toward the edges. On APS-C, both issues aren't obvious because the outer portion is being cropped. Still, it is quite soft wide open. One stop down, sharpness is much improved. Also, this lens has bright ring bokeh yet with 3D quality (if you believe such expression). The bright ring bokeh might be annoying when the OOF background gets busy.

The border sharpness of FA77 is rather low until f4 on digital. It is also known to produce PF at high contrast edges. A taiwanese website tested it against the EF85/1.8 which beats the FA77 in every area optically. Still, it is one of the rare AF lens which MF nicely and pleasant to use, despite its flaws.

The FA31 is probably the rare gem from Pentax. It contains floating design and glass AL, both very rare for Pentax lenses. Optically it is good. The only issue is that the focus ring is kind of loose due to the way it was designed structurally. The rendering reminds me my old Sigma 24/2.8 which is both sharp and smooth. I have no such experience with any other Pentax lenses I have used, even the 3 EF lenses I have (but this is rather subjective).

[wlachan]

Is it because you started out with Pentax and have a lot of lenses that you wanted to still use

That's pretty much what happened. I have been shooting Pentax for more than 2 decades and have collected a few primes that I like to keep. These days I just keep an affordable body so that I can still enjoy those lenses, which I also use on 40D. I added a brief Canon system merely for AF performance and zooms, but never intended to invest too heavily. But from a practical pov, the Canon zooms are more useful to me even though I appreciate the compactness of Pentax.

[Miguel]

Am I correct in understanding that you are using a few K-mount lenses on your 40D?
If so, which adapter brand are you using? I think I'm headed in the same boat.

Thanks.

M

That's pretty much what happened. I have been shooting Pentax for more than 2 decades and have collected a few primes that I like to keep. These days I just keep an affordable body so that I can still enjoy those lenses, which I also use on 40D.
[deleted]

[wlachan]

Am I correct in understanding that you are using a few K-mount lenses on your 40D?
If so, which adapter brand are you using? I think I'm headed in the same boat.

Yes I have 2 PK-EOS adaptors. One is the higher quality japanese adaptor (mount adapter). The other one is a generic chinese made off eBay. Both gets the job done but the japanese one is more precisely made. Also, I have found 2 things others might benefit.

1) I only use my lenses on 40D w/o sawing off the rear aperture levers. The generic one turns clockwise too much causing the lever interferes with the body. So I had to drill a hole so that the adaptor locks in place sooner. The japanese one on the otherhand, locks too soon and roughly only 1/2 of the bayonet fins engaged the body mount. For this I drilled a hole and removed one screw so that the adaptor can be turned further and locked in place (but will cause a double click on the body mount).

2) The 2nd issue concerns the optical performance which was unexpected. As we know there are 2 ways of focusing lenses. Most manual focus lenses move the whole glass group in & out to focus. Most AF lenses move only partial glasses to change focus. For this latter group of lenses, the preciseness of the flange focal distance is important. EOS has the flange focal distance 44mm, PK mount 45.46mm. That means the adaptor should be 1.46mm exactly. What I have found is that the japanese adaptor is 1.5mm thick, while the generic one is 1.28mm. The minor difference in the final flange focal distance causes the sharpness outside the centre image suffers quite badly for the latter group of lenses. I was not aware of this difference until I tried my DA14 which wasn't that great on border sharpness on my K-m, but absolutely horrible on the 40D while their centre sharpness is the same. I have not seen this issue being raised anywhere so I am still trying to find other explanation. But I am convinced it is the flange focal distance causing such difference in optical performance.