So I bought the K7...thought at first it was great, then I used it in the field...

**rparmar** · 05-10-2011, 04:59 PM

Winder +1

jstevewhite · 05-10-2011, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Winder

Nobody is saying the K-5 is not an outstanding camera. Nobody is saying that the K-5 is not the best APS-C camera on the market. I think you are missing the point.

Each person is in a different position when it comes to what they need and where they are in their photography. Just because the K-5 is the best APS-C on the market does not mean everyone needs to drop $1,400.00 on a new camera. I think good glass will have a better ROI for the OP than the K-5.

For photographers who already have 3 or more Limited lenses and a couple of top quality zooms moving to a K-5 is a logical step, but even then I would ask if the improvements in the K-5 are worth $1,400.00 for their specific needs. For some people the answer will be yes and for some the answer is no.

Do you buy your cameras and lenses with the intent of reselling them? Your best ROI is to buy the lens and lock it in a vault rather than use it and take a chance on scratching or denting it.

I'm just pointing out that photography is not a business for most of us, and we don't buy our lenses with an eye for reselling - I couldn't care less whether my 50-135 is worth a lot or a little; I love the lens.

But starting from scratch? I'd say that a K-5 and a good 50mm, or the K-5 and a 35 AL is a better choice than a K-7 and a 43ltd, or a K-7 and a 35ltd, even though the cost is very close. The difference between the cameras is greater than the difference between the images from those lenses.

If the best bang-for-the buck is the question, I'd say K20D and a 35 AL (starter). That's, what, $800 total?

JHD · 05-10-2011, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

True or not that is totally irrelevant to the point you made. You wouldn't buy the K-5 since AF was your priority. But the K-5 has the best AF in the Pentax stable.

The only logical conclusion is that you are not a Pentax user. Fair enough, but in which case... why post here?

Wrong! The only logical conclusion is AF performance is more important to me than high ISO and dynamic range and the K-5 isn't enough of an improvement for me to upgrade my from my K-7. The fact is I own Nikon, Pentax and Sony cameras, so I'm not a fan boy of any brand.

JHD · 05-10-2011, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by crossover37

Ok guys I change my mind a lot.

I decided to keep the K7 so I can keep the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8. That lens is awesome and I used the K7 yesterday and ETTR like I should have and the noise wasn't bad. I will keep my Kx for high iso situations and when I want a compact dslr when on vacation or out of town (coupled with my 50mm f1.4)

I'm going to refuse the K5 package. The K5 won't make me better, the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 on the other hand will give me awesome perspectives for portraits.

Good move! I found a copy of this lens in Vancouver and it should be here any day now. The new version will sell for $1500 that's $700 more than what I paid. My understanding is HSM is not only far more reliable SDM, but so much faster that it smokes SDM.

JeffJS · 05-10-2011, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by crossover37

ya it's tough because I've been wanting a fast telephoto lens for quite some time and I feel that if I got the K5 I would be stuck with my same lenses for a while and I don't know if I'd benefit as much from the body. I love the perspective the Sigma gives and I don't shoot high iso enough to justify the K5 since I'm keeping the Kx. The auto focus on my K7 is pretty quick so I just don't know if the benefits of the K5 would warrant the upgrade, unless the image quality difference was like full frame quality.

Just learn to control the exposure properly and you can elevate the ISO on the K7 without very many problems. If you don't already know about the exposure subject (haven't seen anything to indicate that you don't) then spend some time with a gray card and the various modes and settings to hash it out. Even with the K10d I could get decent results out of ISO 1600 if I decided to push it to that level. Once mastered and beaten into submission, the K7 is a fine camera.

If you feel you've make the right choice, then you did. Simple. Enjoy the camera. I enjoyed mine for a full year and if it weren't for the internet (where I probably might not know about the K5) still would be enjoying the K7.

6000

jstevewhite · 05-10-2011, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by JeffJS

Just learn to control the exposure properly and you can elevate the ISO on the K7 without very many problems. If you don't already know about the exposure subject (haven't seen anything to indicate that you don't) then spend some time with a gray card and the various modes and settings to hash it out. Even with the K10d I could get decent results out of ISO 1600 if I decided to push it to that level. Once mastered and beaten into submission, the K7 is a fine camera.

If you feel you've make the right choice, then you did. Simple. Enjoy the camera. I enjoyed mine for a full year and if it weren't for the internet (where I probably might not know about the K5) still would be enjoying the K7.

6000

Of course anyone who's happy with their camera should stay with it, but I think this whole thread is proceeding on flawed assumptions. The high iso performance of the K-5 is a result of the high dynamic range of the camera, and is more useful than just shooting usable images in the dark. It allows shadow control in a fashion that is flat out impossible with the prior Pentax sensors, including the K-7. You don't have to shoot high ISO to benefit from the K-5's sensor. The K-5 can produce shadow detail that require two shots and HDR software with the K20D or the K-7.

Just sayin if you're making decisions based only on the high iso of the K-5, you're making decisions based on flawed information.

JeffJS · 05-10-2011, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by jstevewhite

Of course anyone who's happy with their camera should stay with it, but I think this whole thread is proceeding on flawed assumptions. The high iso performance of the K-5 is a result of the high dynamic range of the camera, and is more useful than just shooting usable images in the dark. It allows shadow control in a fashion that is flat out impossible with the prior Pentax sensors, including the K-7. You don't have to shoot high ISO to benefit from the K-5's sensor. The K-5 can produce shadow detail that require two shots and HDR software with the K20D or the K-7.

Just sayin if you're making decisions based only on the high iso of the K-5, you're making decisions based on flawed information.

You're preaching to the choir here.

audiobomber · 05-10-2011, 08:09 PM

Sure, the K-5 is wonderful. A year from now, the K-3 will be even more wondrous. Crossover made a decision to buy a K-7. It's not a bad place to stop for a year or two, especially since he'd have to also give up a pricey lens to buy a K-5, and he can keep the K-x for its strong points. As a K-20D and K-x owner, and as someone who had a K-5 for a week, I think he's doing the sensible thing.

Winder · 05-10-2011, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by jstevewhite

Do you buy your cameras and lenses with the intent of reselling them? Your best ROI is to buy the lens and lock it in a vault rather than use it and take a chance on scratching or denting it.

I'm just pointing out that photography is not a business for most of us, and we don't buy our lenses with an eye for reselling - I couldn't care less whether my 50-135 is worth a lot or a little; I love the lens.

But is it a business for the original poster which is why I addressed it in that manner. It is a business for me which is why I look at it that way.

I don't have to lock lenses in a vault if I buy good glass. Do you know what the FA 85mm f/1.4 sold for originally? Do you know what they sell for now? Do you know what the A* 135mm f/1.8 is selling for used today?

I sold my Olympus 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 for a slight profit even though I took a loss on my E-3. Good glass never goes down in value (exchange rates might rise and fall).

BUT, it is not about resale value. It is about buying quality glass that will produce images that will make an impact. It does not matter how awesome a new body is if you put bad or average glass in front of it.

ggeorge11 · 05-10-2011, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Winder

BUT, it is not about resale value. It is about buying quality glass that will produce images that will make an impact. It does not matter how awesome a new body is if you put bad or average glass in front of it.

AMEN, I try to get the best glass I can afford, that I know I will use. Some might disagree with my choices, but they are mine.

JHD · 05-10-2011, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Winder

It does not matter how awesome a new body is if you put bad or average glass in front of it.

Hard to believe anyone could think otherwise.

crossover37 · 05-10-2011, 11:08 PM

Ok so I had a portrait session today and I used the K7 with the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8, all natural light. I attached two images, one normal size and one the crop. It was shot at ISO 1100 and no noise reduction was applied, just a little exposure boost and fill light. What did I find out?

1) The Sigma is simply amazing! The sharpness was awesome from every focal length and all apertures from what I saw. I missed focus on the shots that were not sharp or my shutter speed was too slow and I had camera shake.

2) The K7 High Iso isn't bad when nailing the exposure BUT the noise is still there which causes the image to be less clean when blown up

3) Because the High ISO past 1600 isn't that good even when nailing your exposure, you have to use a slower shutter speed to compensate (when the sun is falling lower) and this causes camera shake and blurred shots, especially when photographing kids and using a longer lens.

4) The dynamic range is not the best and some shots were ruined because I didn't have the correct settings. I could have gotten the shot but it would have been nice to have the K5 to recover the images where there were blown highlights.

5) I need to learn to use the K7 better. Coming from the Kx it's like a whole new camera almost.

6) I need to learn to use the SIgma 50-150mm better as well. The shots that were in focus were great but I missed focus a lot and had camera shake because of the slow shutter speeds which sometimes were caused by my hesitation to up the ISO, which is where having the K5 would have helped since I could up my ISO.

I could have used my Kx when it got darker but the Kx doesn't remember lens adjustments so my focus would have been off with the Sigma.

--- I really want the K5 but man do I love the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8...the focus is fast and the lens is very quiet and it's sharp throughout all focal lengths and apertures once you adjust it correctly ( I adjusted mine +5 on my K7 ). The K5 will arrive Thursday May 12 and now I'm wondering if I should keep it, if I do the Sigma and K7 would need to be sold ----

jstevewhite · 05-11-2011, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Winder

But is it a business for the original poster which is why I addressed it in that manner. It is a business for me which is why I look at it that way.

I don't have to lock lenses in a vault if I buy good glass. Do you know what the FA 85mm f/1.4 sold for originally? Do you know what they sell for now? Do you know what the A* 135mm f/1.8 is selling for used today?

I sold my Olympus 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 for a slight profit even though I took a loss on my E-3. Good glass never goes down in value (exchange rates might rise and fall).

BUT, it is not about resale value. It is about buying quality glass that will produce images that will make an impact. It does not matter how awesome a new body is if you put bad or average glass in front of it.

I'm just saying I think it's a min/max. You don't have to spend $1600 on a 135 f1.8 to have 'good glass', despite what many seem to believe. Bodies *are* the film now. Like I've said in other threads... A K-5 with a used FA50 is a match for a K-7 and a FA43. A K-5 with an DA35 AL is a match for a K-7 with the DA35LTD (as long as you're not shooting macro). And in every situation, the K-5 offers better "film". So do you want a "name" and a collectible piece of glass, or is making good images your priority? Do you think the cost of a lens is directly translatable to its artistic value?

I don't really care what those lenses sold for originally. The number wouldn't compare anyway, as inflation has changed the prices of many things in the last thirty years, lenses not being the only thing. I would avoid using an irreplaceable lens like that in my business anyway, for any number of reasons. In the grand scheme of professional camera gear, a $1300 lens is not particularly expensive, but still must pay for itself to be a good investment. I don't know about nowadays, but back in the day, I rented many lenses - among them a 300 2.8 - because they didn't pay for themselves. My Hassy had several lenses that cost more than that 300mm f2.8, but that's because the clients PAID enough for them to be worth owning as a business proposition. Medium format jobs would often pay for the bit of kit I needed to complete them.

I just don't think it's reasonable anymore, now that bodies come with one kind of film built into them, to suggest that glass is all that matters. It's like your heart or your lungs - which is more important? If either stops working, you die.

jstevewhite · 05-11-2011, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by crossover37

--- I really want the K5 but man do I love the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8...the focus is fast and the lens is very quiet and it's sharp throughout all focal lengths and apertures once you adjust it correctly ( I adjusted mine +5 on my K7 ). The K5 will arrive Thursday May 12 and now I'm wondering if I should keep it, if I do the Sigma and K7 would need to be sold ----

From the crop it looks like the lens is still ff a bit - the curls are sharper than the eyelashes.

jstevewhite · 05-11-2011, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by JHD

Hard to believe anyone could think otherwise.

I'm not advocating "bad or average glass"; I'm simply suggesting that one doesn't have to spend $1300+ on a 135 f1.8 to lay claim to the condition of 'owning good glass'. As I said below and in other threads, a K-5 with a DA35 AL is the match for a K-7 with a DA 35 LTD, for example. If 'good glass' is the only criteria, why isn't everyone shooting zeiss or leitz? Because the question follows "good for what?".

Particularly in a professional role, the dynamic range of the K-5 is probably worth more money than the additional two-thirds stop of, say, the FA 77 1.8 over the DA 70LTD. The 77 may hold its value better, but does that mean it will make better images? Does spending more on glass make one a better photographer?

05-10-2011, 05:23 PM	#123
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by rparmar True or not that is totally irrelevant to the point you made. You wouldn't buy the K-5 since AF was your priority. But the K-5 has the best AF in the Pentax stable. The only logical conclusion is that you are not a Pentax user. Fair enough, but in which case... why post here? Wrong! The only logical conclusion is AF performance is more important to me than high ISO and dynamic range and the K-5 isn't enough of an improvement for me to upgrade my from my K-7. The fact is I own Nikon, Pentax and Sony cameras, so I'm not a fan boy of any brand. Last edited by JHD; 05-10-2011 at 05:31 PM.

05-10-2011, 11:08 PM	#132
crossover37 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 214 Original Poster	Ok so I had a portrait session today and I used the K7 with the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8, all natural light. I attached two images, one normal size and one the crop. It was shot at ISO 1100 and no noise reduction was applied, just a little exposure boost and fill light. What did I find out? 1) The Sigma is simply amazing! The sharpness was awesome from every focal length and all apertures from what I saw. I missed focus on the shots that were not sharp or my shutter speed was too slow and I had camera shake. 2) The K7 High Iso isn't bad when nailing the exposure BUT the noise is still there which causes the image to be less clean when blown up 3) Because the High ISO past 1600 isn't that good even when nailing your exposure, you have to use a slower shutter speed to compensate (when the sun is falling lower) and this causes camera shake and blurred shots, especially when photographing kids and using a longer lens. 4) The dynamic range is not the best and some shots were ruined because I didn't have the correct settings. I could have gotten the shot but it would have been nice to have the K5 to recover the images where there were blown highlights. 5) I need to learn to use the K7 better. Coming from the Kx it's like a whole new camera almost. 6) I need to learn to use the SIgma 50-150mm better as well. The shots that were in focus were great but I missed focus a lot and had camera shake because of the slow shutter speeds which sometimes were caused by my hesitation to up the ISO, which is where having the K5 would have helped since I could up my ISO. I could have used my Kx when it got darker but the Kx doesn't remember lens adjustments so my focus would have been off with the Sigma. --- I really want the K5 but man do I love the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8...the focus is fast and the lens is very quiet and it's sharp throughout all focal lengths and apertures once you adjust it correctly ( I adjusted mine +5 on my K7 ). The K5 will arrive Thursday May 12 and now I'm wondering if I should keep it, if I do the Sigma and K7 would need to be sold ---- Attached Images Last edited by crossover37; 05-10-2011 at 11:49 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thought experiment with depth of field...want to help?	arpaagent	Photographic Technique	9	09-18-2009 07:08 AM
a thought	benjikan	General Talk	3	07-01-2009 12:23 AM
Just a worrying thought	Torphoto	Photographic Technique	10	06-03-2009 02:46 AM
Wow! I thought I had bought a good camera system	racinsince55	General Talk	11	06-13-2008 04:19 PM

05-10-2011, 04:59 PM	#121
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Winder +1

05-10-2011, 05:21 PM	#122
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by Winder Nobody is saying the K-5 is not an outstanding camera. Nobody is saying that the K-5 is not the best APS-C camera on the market. I think you are missing the point. Each person is in a different position when it comes to what they need and where they are in their photography. Just because the K-5 is the best APS-C on the market does not mean everyone needs to drop $1,400.00 on a new camera. I think good glass will have a better ROI for the OP than the K-5. For photographers who already have 3 or more Limited lenses and a couple of top quality zooms moving to a K-5 is a logical step, but even then I would ask if the improvements in the K-5 are worth $1,400.00 for their specific needs. For some people the answer will be yes and for some the answer is no. Do you buy your cameras and lenses with the intent of reselling them? Your best ROI is to buy the lens and lock it in a vault rather than use it and take a chance on scratching or denting it. I'm just pointing out that photography is not a business for most of us, and we don't buy our lenses with an eye for reselling - I couldn't care less whether my 50-135 is worth a lot or a little; I love the lens. But starting from scratch? I'd say that a K-5 and a good 50mm, or the K-5 and a 35 AL is a better choice than a K-7 and a 43ltd, or a K-7 and a 35ltd, even though the cost is very close. The difference between the cameras is greater than the difference between the images from those lenses. If the best bang-for-the buck is the question, I'd say K20D and a 35 AL (starter). That's, what, $800 total?

05-10-2011, 05:30 PM	#124
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by crossover37 Ok guys I change my mind a lot. I decided to keep the K7 so I can keep the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8. That lens is awesome and I used the K7 yesterday and ETTR like I should have and the noise wasn't bad. I will keep my Kx for high iso situations and when I want a compact dslr when on vacation or out of town (coupled with my 50mm f1.4) I'm going to refuse the K5 package. The K5 won't make me better, the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 on the other hand will give me awesome perspectives for portraits. Good move! I found a copy of this lens in Vancouver and it should be here any day now. The new version will sell for $1500 that's $700 more than what I paid. My understanding is HSM is not only far more reliable SDM, but so much faster that it smokes SDM.

05-10-2011, 06:01 PM	#125
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by crossover37 ya it's tough because I've been wanting a fast telephoto lens for quite some time and I feel that if I got the K5 I would be stuck with my same lenses for a while and I don't know if I'd benefit as much from the body. I love the perspective the Sigma gives and I don't shoot high iso enough to justify the K5 since I'm keeping the Kx. The auto focus on my K7 is pretty quick so I just don't know if the benefits of the K5 would warrant the upgrade, unless the image quality difference was like full frame quality. Just learn to control the exposure properly and you can elevate the ISO on the K7 without very many problems. If you don't already know about the exposure subject (haven't seen anything to indicate that you don't) then spend some time with a gray card and the various modes and settings to hash it out. Even with the K10d I could get decent results out of ISO 1600 if I decided to push it to that level. Once mastered and beaten into submission, the K7 is a fine camera. If you feel you've make the right choice, then you did. Simple. Enjoy the camera. I enjoyed mine for a full year and if it weren't for the internet (where I probably might not know about the K5) still would be enjoying the K7. 6000

05-10-2011, 06:07 PM	#126
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by JeffJS Just learn to control the exposure properly and you can elevate the ISO on the K7 without very many problems. If you don't already know about the exposure subject (haven't seen anything to indicate that you don't) then spend some time with a gray card and the various modes and settings to hash it out. Even with the K10d I could get decent results out of ISO 1600 if I decided to push it to that level. Once mastered and beaten into submission, the K7 is a fine camera. If you feel you've make the right choice, then you did. Simple. Enjoy the camera. I enjoyed mine for a full year and if it weren't for the internet (where I probably might not know about the K5) still would be enjoying the K7. 6000 Of course anyone who's happy with their camera should stay with it, but I think this whole thread is proceeding on flawed assumptions. The high iso performance of the K-5 is a result of the high dynamic range of the camera, and is more useful than just shooting usable images in the dark. It allows shadow control in a fashion that is flat out impossible with the prior Pentax sensors, including the K-7. You don't have to shoot high ISO to benefit from the K-5's sensor. The K-5 can produce shadow detail that require two shots and HDR software with the K20D or the K-7. Just sayin if you're making decisions based only on the high iso of the K-5, you're making decisions based on flawed information.

05-10-2011, 07:07 PM	#127
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by jstevewhite Of course anyone who's happy with their camera should stay with it, but I think this whole thread is proceeding on flawed assumptions. The high iso performance of the K-5 is a result of the high dynamic range of the camera, and is more useful than just shooting usable images in the dark. It allows shadow control in a fashion that is flat out impossible with the prior Pentax sensors, including the K-7. You don't have to shoot high ISO to benefit from the K-5's sensor. The K-5 can produce shadow detail that require two shots and HDR software with the K20D or the K-7. Just sayin if you're making decisions based only on the high iso of the K-5, you're making decisions based on flawed information. You're preaching to the choir here.

05-10-2011, 08:09 PM	#128
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Sure, the K-5 is wonderful. A year from now, the K-3 will be even more wondrous. Crossover made a decision to buy a K-7. It's not a bad place to stop for a year or two, especially since he'd have to also give up a pricey lens to buy a K-5, and he can keep the K-x for its strong points. As a K-20D and K-x owner, and as someone who had a K-5 for a week, I think he's doing the sensible thing.

05-10-2011, 08:20 PM	#129
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by jstevewhite Do you buy your cameras and lenses with the intent of reselling them? Your best ROI is to buy the lens and lock it in a vault rather than use it and take a chance on scratching or denting it. I'm just pointing out that photography is not a business for most of us, and we don't buy our lenses with an eye for reselling - I couldn't care less whether my 50-135 is worth a lot or a little; I love the lens. But is it a business for the original poster which is why I addressed it in that manner. It is a business for me which is why I look at it that way. I don't have to lock lenses in a vault if I buy good glass. Do you know what the FA 85mm f/1.4 sold for originally? Do you know what they sell for now? Do you know what the A* 135mm f/1.8 is selling for used today? I sold my Olympus 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 for a slight profit even though I took a loss on my E-3. Good glass never goes down in value (exchange rates might rise and fall). BUT, it is not about resale value. It is about buying quality glass that will produce images that will make an impact. It does not matter how awesome a new body is if you put bad or average glass in front of it.

05-10-2011, 08:27 PM	#130
ggeorge11 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Central Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 218	Originally posted by Winder BUT, it is not about resale value. It is about buying quality glass that will produce images that will make an impact. It does not matter how awesome a new body is if you put bad or average glass in front of it. AMEN, I try to get the best glass I can afford, that I know I will use. Some might disagree with my choices, but they are mine.

05-10-2011, 08:27 PM	#131
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by Winder It does not matter how awesome a new body is if you put bad or average glass in front of it. Hard to believe anyone could think otherwise.

05-11-2011, 12:13 AM	#133
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by Winder But is it a business for the original poster which is why I addressed it in that manner. It is a business for me which is why I look at it that way. I don't have to lock lenses in a vault if I buy good glass. Do you know what the FA 85mm f/1.4 sold for originally? Do you know what they sell for now? Do you know what the A* 135mm f/1.8 is selling for used today? I sold my Olympus 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 for a slight profit even though I took a loss on my E-3. Good glass never goes down in value (exchange rates might rise and fall). BUT, it is not about resale value. It is about buying quality glass that will produce images that will make an impact. It does not matter how awesome a new body is if you put bad or average glass in front of it. I'm just saying I think it's a min/max. You don't have to spend $1600 on a 135 f1.8 to have 'good glass', despite what many seem to believe. Bodies are the film now. Like I've said in other threads... A K-5 with a used FA50 is a match for a K-7 and a FA43. A K-5 with an DA35 AL is a match for a K-7 with the DA35LTD (as long as you're not shooting macro). And in every situation, the K-5 offers better "film". So do you want a "name" and a collectible piece of glass, or is making good images your priority? Do you think the cost of a lens is directly translatable to its artistic value? I don't really care what those lenses sold for originally. The number wouldn't compare anyway, as inflation has changed the prices of many things in the last thirty years, lenses not being the only thing. I would avoid using an irreplaceable lens like that in my business anyway, for any number of reasons. In the grand scheme of professional camera gear, a $1300 lens is not particularly expensive, but still must pay for itself to be a good investment. I don't know about nowadays, but back in the day, I rented many lenses - among them a 300 2.8 - because they didn't pay for themselves. My Hassy had several lenses that cost more than that 300mm f2.8, but that's because the clients PAID enough for them to be worth owning as a business proposition. Medium format jobs would often pay for the bit of kit I needed to complete them. I just don't think it's reasonable anymore, now that bodies come with one kind of film built into them, to suggest that glass is all that matters. It's like your heart or your lungs - which is more important? If either stops working, you die.

05-11-2011, 12:16 AM	#134
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by crossover37 --- I really want the K5 but man do I love the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8...the focus is fast and the lens is very quiet and it's sharp throughout all focal lengths and apertures once you adjust it correctly ( I adjusted mine +5 on my K7 ). The K5 will arrive Thursday May 12 and now I'm wondering if I should keep it, if I do the Sigma and K7 would need to be sold ---- From the crop it looks like the lens is still ff a bit - the curls are sharper than the eyelashes.

05-11-2011, 12:24 AM	#135
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by JHD Hard to believe anyone could think otherwise. I'm not advocating "bad or average glass"; I'm simply suggesting that one doesn't have to spend $1300+ on a 135 f1.8 to lay claim to the condition of 'owning good glass'. As I said below and in other threads, a K-5 with a DA35 AL is the match for a K-7 with a DA 35 LTD, for example. If 'good glass' is the only criteria, why isn't everyone shooting zeiss or leitz? Because the question follows "good for what?". Particularly in a professional role, the dynamic range of the K-5 is probably worth more money than the additional two-thirds stop of, say, the FA 77 1.8 over the DA 70LTD. The 77 may hold its value better, but does that mean it will make better images? Does spending more on glass make one a better photographer?