[CarlJF]

+1.

It seems to me that, if you want long lenses, there are some good ones available -- more would be better, but...

And, if you like (or think you will like) shooting with longer lenses (longer than 50-135), then why would you want FF so badly ?

+1

If you're ready to buy a 150-600mm lens in Canon or nikon mount, why can't you buy the 150-450 ? Sure, it's a bit shorter than 600mm but will still give you much more reach than your 50-135 and will give you about the same as the 150-600mm on a FF... Even if telephoto choice isn't as extensive as Canon or Nikon, you should not have any problem finding something longer than 135mm in K-mount, no matter if it's new or used...

[derekkite]

I shoot with Pentax and long lenses, have used the Sigma zooms, now have the Sigma 500 f4.5. I know every failing of my kit, and hope for AF improvements in the next iteration of apsc or the full frame offering.

First, as someone mentioned, it is expensive to switch. For me it would mean new flashes, a different collection of shorter lenses, macro lengths, as well as backup bodies that I have available. And for what?

I have friends who shoot with nikon, and Canon gear, nice, very nice stuff. The thing is that any time we go out together for an expedition to shoot bears, sheep or hawks, it matters very little what the hardware is. It is more a matter of technique. Of course we all have decent stuff that is capable of capturing adequately.

It is really worth remembering that the very nice shots we see from a lens are the result of a skilled photographer finding a situation that matched the capability of the lens. I see long zoom shots that are nice taken in the summer when there is lots of light.

You can think of it this way. Set your price ceiling for a lens at what you would spend to replace your whole kit plus the Tamron. You may find that you could buy a far better lens for your k3 as opposed to a good zoom plus everything else. The long zooms are nice but to get another stop or so which will really increase the scope of your photography would be worth whatever you spend.

So no, I wouldn't switch my whole kit for a consumer zoom. I'd switch for a very nice long prime though. A 500 f4, or 600 f4 or something like that. But a slow zoom? Nope.

[mee]

As already mentioned by others.. every system has it's pluses and minuses. Make a list, tally the vote, and see for yourself. That said, I wouldn't do it just on paper.. there is a lot to be learned by handling a camera than just specifications on a white paper.

I'm still contemplating Nikon sometime in the future as their FF body prices drop.. but maybe not. It is OK to shop around. At the end of the day, what you buy is yours and there is no shame in using the camera system that you find achieves your goals the most.

[btnapa]

Nor necessarily, you can keep your Pentax gear and buy from another brand only what you don't find in Pentax mount. For instance you can buy a D610 and a Tamy 150-600, it costs less that selling all Pentax gear and rebuying the same in Nikon mount. For the price of a DFA150-450, you can almost have a D610+150-600 new.

Good suggestion. That is definitely a viable option.

I have a wedding photographer friend who owns, Canon, Nikon and now Sony gear with more lenses than I can remember. I do not know how he deals with all the menus and the lenses and system quarks.

The issue with me with multi brand ownership is more on the ergonomics side. When I shot weddings, we obviously had to have a back up body. I made a point of buying exactly the same two bodies as in a fast paced environment, I did not want to deal with variation in menus and button layout even within the same brand.

[gastch]

Just a couple points: 1) I didn't say I want a FF. I think they are overrated. But because of this I think maybe its the boost Pentax needs to grab more market share which leads to more third party lenses being available. 2) the 150-450 is out of my budget. Its $3K here is Canada by the time it gets to my doorstep. 3) Although the 300F4 is awesome even with cropping I think I want the flexibility of zoom. 4) Doesn't it just piss anybody off when a pentax mount lens is 2-3 hundred or more for the same lens in canon or nikon? Its great for resale but its sucks when buying.

[CarlJF]

For instance you can buy a D610 and a Tamy 150-600, it costs less that selling all Pentax gear and rebuying the same in Nikon mount. For the price of a DFA150-450, you can almost have a D610+150-600 new.

But this also raises the questions: what can you do with a D610 + Sigma/Tamron 150-600 that you can't do as well with the K-3 + 150-450 or Sigma 50-500 ? What can you do with the Pentax that you can't with the other ? And, more importantly, are these differences worth the trouble of supporting a dual-brand system ?

[gastch]

But this also raises the questions: what can you do with a D610 + Sigma/Tamron 150-600 that you can't do as well with the K-3 + 150-450 or Sigma 50-500 ? What can you do with the Pentax that you can't with the other ? And, more importantly, are these differences worth the trouble of supporting a dual-brand system ?

Most likely I will be going with the 50-500 as you mentioned. I just get frustrated with limitations since there are 2 new lenses in the Tamron and the Sigma contemporary that are in the budget but unavailable to me so I have to go with the older discontinued 50-500 or 150-500 that is getting harder to find. Maybe I'm make to much of this.

[biz-engineer]

But this also raises the questions: what can you do with a D610 + Sigma/Tamron 150-600 that you can't do as well with the K-3 + 150-450 or Sigma 50-500 ? What can you do with the Pentax that you can't with the other ? And, more importantly, are these differences worth the trouble of supporting a dual-brand system ?

I bet the D610/Tamron 150-600 would deliver better IQ and better AF than the K-3 DFA combo. Then of course, I don't know how easy it is to switch from one camera to the other (buttons places differently, different menus etc ...).
The K-3 + DFA deliver as well, but even if many are pro DFA 150-450, I personally find that even if the DFA is fairly good, the 24Mpixel resolution is a stretch, especially near max FL, both in term of ISO stretch and resolution limit. I have a DA*300 and I was going to swap it for a DFA150-450, but I'd prefer to use it on FF camera, and 450mm on FF is not going to be any longer than the DA300 on a K-3, and I wish to have about 400mm FF eq. without TC.
The thing is that 150-450 on FF is a nice FL range for sports but f2.8 is nice to have for sports (when more speed is needed), the DFA 150-450 is f5.6 (not so fast). I use a 70-200 f2.8 on K-5 / K-3 for sports, and I find it appropriate. Now , for wildlife photography, a DFA 150-450 on APSC is convenient but kind of hit the resolution power of the K-3, and on FF would be slow for sports.

In short, for me, the ideal lenses would be DFA 100-300 f2.8 and DA 400mm f4 APSC, or DFA 600mm f4 on FF. Sigma and Tamron with the 150-600 have done a compelling product for wildlife, and Nikon had to catch up with their new 200-500, Canon did not catch up.

[yucatanPentax]

I know it isn't a 500 or 600mm lens, but the Pentax 60-250mm plays very nicely with the Pentax HD 1.4 Teleconverter. That comes out to 350mm x crop factor = 525mm FF equivalent. And the 60-250mm is just as great quality as the 50-135.

Used, you could pick up both the 60-250mm and HD 1.4 TC for ~ $1200 or so...

The Sigma 50-500 & 150-500 are not so deficient in the actual glass that the contemporaries are light years ahead in IQ. Mostly, maybe, improved coatings and different exterior. Used properly, even 50 year old lenses do just fine. Position yourself according to the light and manual focus with a 50 yo lens. I know that's not the answer you were looking for, but it does work...

[Rupert]

I bet I've read this post a thousand times...here and at DPR and a dozen other sites...it goes the same every time...just worded a little different each time.....

It goes like this...."I'm out here on the bridge and I'm thinking of jumping...anyone want to try and save me?"

The crowd quickly gathers and gives all kinds of reasons not to jump....and a few of us are saying, "what the heck is holding you back?"

I still read them, I guess that makes me a voyeur.......or as Otis puts it..."just plain dumb"?

Regards!

[biz-engineer]

"what the heck is holding you back?"

Money and attachment to the brand.

[pathdoc]

Money

That's important for a lot of people. It would be nice if the Magic Lens Fairy gave us what we wanted whenever we wanted it while filling the manufacturers' pockets with gold, but the real world sadly doesn't work that way - if anyone's going to fill RicOlympuSoCaNikon's* pockets with gold, it has to be us.

* and everyone else who makes or used to make SLR lenses

[quant2325]

Most of the iconic photos ever taken were in black and white using film. The IQ of these photos can't compare to what is possible out of any modern camera. Unless you are a professional who is making decisions on what the hiring agency is expecting or what is easiest to work with w/o expense being an issue, why waste your time with such nonsense? If you want the absolute best in image quality buy a medium format camera. If not, the K-3ii is as good or better as any APS-C out there and the FF is coming. Lenses? How many does an amateur need? Pentax isn't lacking in much, but what is necessary (70-200mm f/2.8) is coming or can be covered by Tamron. Half the glass I use is manually focused anyway, so the Samyang/Rokinon/etc. solutions look good.

What Gramps used should be of no concern. You inherited his love for photography and hopefully his good skills, but he likely couldn't care less what camera system you use. I like Pentax because it is comfortable to use and the weather resistant body can't be beat for the money spent. You have to make your own decisions.

[normhead]

Personally the long glass in other mounts is only a bargain if you discount the speed. The DAF 150-450 is ƒ5.6, fast enough to use with a the 1.4 TC. The various 150-600s are ƒ6.3, and that makes a difference.

But that being said, it's a pointless decision. with the Sigma 150-500 being available for Pentax , I'd ask, 500 or 600, really, that's a 20% increase. If you're shooting with a K-3 you have a 16% in resolution within the crop area or over a K-5, so your net gain, using a 150-600 on FF is about 4%. You can't see it.

So unless you're going D7100 or D7200 and 150-600, save your money. And even if you aren't, think 50 to 60, same increase as 500-600, most people who own a 50 and 70 don't own a 60, it's just not enough difference. Same with 500 to 600. If you were going to 800, maybe it's worth it, 500-600? I wouldn't bother.

[normhead]

That is what I did. I still have my K5, K-01, and ME Super but I also bought a Nikon D750. I use them all at various times for various reasons. Instead of upgrading to a better ASPC I just decided to go FF and enjoy the improved AF of the Nikon.

I mainly use my Pentax gear for macro and when I feel like enjoying my small collection of M42 lenses. Eventually I will give the Pentax gear to my children.

I do enjoy the amazing AF abilities of the D750 but it is definitely a larger camera to carry around and sometimes it is more than I want to carry.

I wonder how much you'd use your D750 if you had a K-3. While I'm sure there are times the AF is very helpful, there are also a lot of times, landscape for example, when it probably wouldn't make enough difference to worry about. We did have the one thread that showed pretty conclusively that for a subject coming head on, the 750 was superior, but, the only time I've done that in the last few years was test images for that thread. So, I'm still wondering. The AF in the K-3 is so much improved over your K-5, and especially your K-01, I'm just not sure were discussing apples and apples.