[rawr]

Well they would have to. Pentax only makes 5 FF lenses...

Oh really? I count 10.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/183420-current...me-lenses.html

[bobmaxja]

Why this show in Pentax DSLR, this should be in third party lense. Pentax cannot be blame for Sigma.

[Isnwm]

Ok. In retrospect , I should've probably just been griping about sigma & not Pentax. Not their fault. I do love my k5, just frustrated @ lens pricing and availability. Secondly, to the CIA agent who went back & read every post I've made since joining this forum & calling me a spoiled brat. I think that was a bit much. I'm a grown man I can buy & sell what I want. That's of no concern to you. If I want a certain lens, who are you to say I can't have it, or wouldnt know how to use it ? So. To everyone but the CIA agent, I apologize, I shouldn't put my frustrations on Pentax. They make a great camera, and a couple of you made great points. Give Ricoh a chance and see what happens. Thanks.

[newmikey]

Secondly, to the CIA agent who went back & read every post I've made since joining this forum & calling me a spoiled brat. I think that was a bit much. I'm a grown man I can buy & sell what I want.

You a grown man? Try behaving like one first.

Signed: 007

[EDIT]Reading every post you've ever made sounds like a lot of work - it wasn't. Just a few and none with any images in them so it actually was easy...

[vonBaloney]

Ok. In retrospect , I should've probably just been griping about sigma & not Pentax. Not their fault. I do love my k5, just frustrated @ lens pricing and availability. Secondly, to the CIA agent who went back & read every post I've made since joining this forum & calling me a spoiled brat. I think that was a bit much. I'm a grown man I can buy & sell what I want. That's of no concern to you. If I want a certain lens, who are you to say I can't have it, or wouldnt know how to use it ? So. To everyone but the CIA agent, I apologize, I shouldn't put my frustrations on Pentax. They make a great camera, and a couple of you made great points. Give Ricoh a chance and see what happens. Thanks.

Try not to be too defensive even if the comments could have been given a nicer sugar coat -- experience matters. It is *very* easy to get into a cycle of I need this, I need that, and most of the time it is just not true. Take your time and learn what you are dong. I promise that no matter what you think now, that opinion will be vastly different after you shoot a few thousand photos (or 10x times that, depending on your style and subject matter).

[boriscleto]

Oh really? I count 10.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/183420-current...me-lenses.html

Three FA Limiteds and the two D FA Macros. Pentax says the rest are for crop sensor only. They may work, but until Pentax says they are for full frame they aren't.

[Kozlok]

If you go to Nikon, how will the DA15 Limited control you mind? Where's their 15 limited? No where. You would have to control your own mind.

Where is their DA40 limited? No where. FA limited equivalents? Nope. Weather sealed? Good luck with that. Infinity focus with M42? Never. Image Stabilization with millions of old lenses? Not that either.

Pick a kit, any kit, and add up how much the Nikon set will weigh vs. the Pentax. You'd never take that Nikon kit anywhere unless you had the Incredible Hulk to carry it all around for you. DA limiteds fit in your pants pocket. Yes, Nikon has things Pentax doesn't, and vice versa. Decide what you need, pick your system based on that. I like shooting with primes and old MF glass.

Here's what you should do: Pick a lens, any lens, preferably a prime, and shoot with only that for a month. Take a thousand photos with it. Why not the DA35 2.4. Cheap, sharp, fun. Or the Helios 44, hard to use, fun, and magical. At the end of the month, you will know what you wanted that you didn't have. Buy only that one thing. Repeat this process until you are satisfied. It's probably a very short trip.

Of course, I'm probably wrong because I'm the worst photographer in the world.

[interested_observer]

Advantages of the Nikon D7000:

Significantly more lenses available- 169 lenses vs 90 lenses - Around 90% more lenses available.

I was just going to point out that on a raw absolute count basis, yes Nikon (and Canon) have more lenses available. If you pull apart the numbers, and only count Nikon's (or Canon's) image stabilized lenses, then the counts become nearly equal. Neither Nikon or Canon really have any image stabilized lenses that are wide - some may argue that they are not needed. So, there is a little more than just the raw body count. In both the Canon and Nikon lens counts, each offers a range of aperture speeds also within several focal lengths.

That said, both Nikon and Canon offer longer telephoto lenses (over 300mm), along with the specialty lenses - tilt shift, more macro, a wider collection of appliances - tubes and teleconverters, etc.

So, the bottom line is where do your particular interests lie, and which lens system provides the coverage for your specific needs.

[zapp]

I'm probably not alone when I say that I'm getting more increasingly disgruntled and peeved at the lack of respect that Pentax camera get, and consequently the lack of lens options we have. I got so excited when I saw the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8... Then my excitement quickly turned to anger and resentment as soon as I saw they don't make it for Pentax. I swear everyday I have to talk myself down off the proverbial ledge. Everyday I tell myself "just do it... Sell it all, and get a 7D or a D7000... Plenty of lens options. Do it." Then I read the comparison reviews and the K-5 beats them both. WHY DO WE HAVE SUPERIOR CAMERA BODIES W/ HORRIBLE lens selection ?!?! We literally don't have ONE 2.8 lens that covers ANYTHING between 200 & 300. NOT ONE ! Why not ?! So our only choices are 70-200 f/2.8 , then go straight to 300 f/2.8 prime. Does sigma not think we would like the flexibility, too ? Or maybe they won't make it because they'd sell like 12 of them ? That's my guess. I've been crunching numbers all week , looking at the 7D & D7000, I'd have to sell everything, and I'd still come out
Of pocket about a grand, to have my comparable lenses & flash on either of those bodies. That's when I say "oh, it's not worth it. I'll stay Pentax, and just get the K-5 IIs. That'll ease my pain. But it probably will just make it worse. Because then I'll have an even better camera, and still be limited to te same lens selection we have now. Am I the only one feeling like this ? How have you life long pentaxians dealt with this for so long ? I've been one for like 5 months and it already ticks me off. We have LESS lenses to choose from. The ones we do have are HUNDREDS of dollars more expensive than Nikon or Canon. Take the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS Version. $1,299... Cheapest you're going to find it ANYWHERE for pentax. Trust me. I've looked EVERYWHERE. But you know who had it for $999, and $1099 ?! Nikon & Canon ! I'll get off my soap box now. I'm just frustrated & seriously getting to the point of wishing I never bought my K-5. I have snapsort to thank for that.

The list of advantages speaking for the K5II is much shorter than it used to be a year ago, before other companies started revamping their prime lenses and presented full frame cameras with a small footprint. I still like the footprint of the K5 and the mechanical quality of the primes and DA* lenses. I hate the AF of the K5 in articifical light and for capturing moving obejects, as well as the crappy focus alignment in my K5. I don't really see the point of upgrading to a K5II. The offer is interesting, but buying another APS-C camera requires a strong statement by Pentax on the future of the system.

btw: The new Canon 24 and 28 mm lenses are stabilized and an update of the 1.4/35 is on the way.

[soalle]

I'm probably not alone when I say that I'm getting more increasingly disgruntled and peeved at the lack of respect that Pentax camera get, and consequently the lack of lens options we have. I got so excited when I saw the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8... Then my excitement quickly turned to anger and resentment as soon as I saw they don't make it for Pentax. I swear everyday I have to talk myself down off the proverbial ledge. Everyday I tell myself "just do it... Sell it all, and get a 7D or a D7000... Plenty of lens options. Do it."

Isn't this the one you mention?

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO HSM AF Lens (for Pentax) 136109

[Rondec]

Well, I guess I am a "cup half full guy," but I don't really concern myself so much about lenses that I don't want and will never use. The fact that Pentax now has a 560mm 7000 dollar lens in their line up doesn't make a bit of difference to me because I won't ever want it, much less own it.

I definitely recommend that people, before they buy into a camera brand, think about the glass that they hope to own. You are buying into a system and even if you can't buy all of the lenses initially, it is the lenses that will continue with you, while in three or four years, you will have moved on to a different camera body. Nikon and Canon both have good glass, but I do like my current line up of lenses.

They are smaller, particularly compared to image stabilized equivalents for Canon/Nikon. Consider the D FA 100 macro WR versus the Canon 100mm macro IS. The Canon weighs in at 625 grams and uses a 67mm filter, the DFA 100 (which has a very nice build) is 340 grams and uses a 49mm filter. Both are nice and very capable of taking great photos, but I prefer the Pentax. For folks that are outdoors much, having the weather sealing is awfully nice. Sure you can get sealed bodies and lenses from Canon and Nikon, but you will end up paying quite a bit more as only their top end lenses are sealed.

In the end, draw up a plan -- lenses you think will fit your shooting style and if Pentax doesn't offer them, then you are best moving to a brand that does. And don't worry about the lenses that you don't want or need. They won't effect your shooting one bit either way.

[vonBaloney]

Isn't this the one you mention?

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO HSM AF Lens (for Pentax) 136109

It is likely that lens will never actually be released in Pentax mount.

[nmrecording]

Lots of pros have several bodies, not all of which are FF... Some Nikon FF users I know keep an APS-C around for the extra reach in telephoto, while the FF does the wedding interiors etc.

Some other Nikon-using press pro photogs I know also use bagfuls of Sigma lenses on their APS-C D300s's. So I think Sigma knows that 'pro' is a diverse market. They probably also sell 5 times greater volume of lenses for APS-C bodies than on FF.

I think your Nikon users don't know the difference between APS-C and FF.

APS-C doesn't provide any extra reach.. It's just cutting the sides off the of the viewpoint that a FF would provide. IE them shooting their FF and APSC side by side would result in the same magnification, just different field of views. IE like having a wide screen movie playing on a non wide screen TV without letterbox.

Maybe educate them before they look dumb in a conversation IRL

[Pål Jensen]

I think your Nikon users don't know the difference between APS-C and FF.

APS-C doesn't provide any extra reach.. It's just cutting the sides off the of the viewpoint that a FF would provide. IE them shooting their FF and APSC side by side would result in the same magnification, just different field of views. IE like having a wide screen movie playing on a non wide screen TV without letterbox.

Maybe educate them before they look dumb in a conversation IRL

Meaningless. APS give you extra reach. If you crop FF to APS you get that extra reach but then you got APS not FF If you want FF you don't get APS reach. And FF is just a cropped 645 format which again is acropped 67 format which is a cropped 4X5 format which is cropped 8X10 - photography is a crop of reality.
In the film days no one said that smaller format was just a cropped bigger format....

[vonBaloney]

I think your Nikon users don't know the difference between APS-C and FF.

APS-C doesn't provide any extra reach.. It's just cutting the sides off the of the viewpoint that a FF would provide. IE them shooting their FF and APSC side by side would result in the same magnification, just different field of views. IE like having a wide screen movie playing on a non wide screen TV without letterbox.

Maybe educate them before they look dumb in a conversation IRL

Only if the pixel density in the APSC-sized area of the FF sensor is the same as on the APS-C sensor, which it generally is not -- it is lower. So you do get extra reach with smaller sensor. You effectively get extra reach just upgrading MPs on the same-sized sensor as long as IQ remains high -- like when I went from the K10D to the K-7 to the K-5, I got more reach each time because I can crop more with each upgrade for the same sized prints. Put a K-mount lens on the Q and tell me you don't get extra reach...