[*isteve]

I don't have a 16-50, so I can't concur, but I haven't a clue what Steve is complaining about with the 31. Mine has never shown a hint of fringing, except in those rare instances where I do something stupid and shoot a tree branch in shade against a blown out sky, and that is, likely as not, a sensor problem, not a lens problem...

So you do know what I am talking about. Actually wide open the 31 exhibits purple fringing around specular highlights as does the FA* 200 F2.8. Neither is as bad as the good old FA 135 F2.8. All of them exhibit this issue on any digital sensor. DA lenses are almost immune to PF because they have the appropriate coatings on the rear elements.

That does not mean that either are not good or even excellent lenses, just that they are not perfect. But like I said, an objective opinion seems to be beyond some people when it comes to sacred cows. The 31LTD is not my favourite lens, but its close.

Note to Steve, I know a few people who are still angry enough at Canon regarding the orphaning of the FD mount that they will never buy another Canon product. These are people who trusted them to support the mount in return for several thousands of dollars in lens purchases, only to have the mount completely orphaned an unsupported.
Canon may have gambled and won, but they hurt a lot of people in the process.

Neverthesless it was the right technical decision. Canon had very little choice and went from a relatively small player to a major force partly as a result of this change.

Like I said to take the actions of a company personally is simply childish. It may be annoying but they owe you nothing and you get to vote with your wallet if you are not happy. Thats business.

[Lance B]

Ned B. pushed this against the rest of the crowd there, so do _NOT_ put "=" between him and Pentax...



that is just your guess... the truth is (as told by Ned) that it was much done against the wishes of the company, only because of his personal efforts...

It is *not* my guess because I was the one who advised everyone that Ned was the one who pushed for this feature to be included. Ned didn't tell you, he told me and then I told everyone under his guidance.

Now, I fail to see what you are on about. Get this - NED IS PART OF PENTAX!! and as he is PART and the MARKETING department of Pentax it is his JOB to advise Pentax what they should have as features and as such he told them that it would be best that they include this feature. You are trying to make out that somehow Ned is NOT part of Pentax and therefore not part of their marketing department which is WRONG. So, in this case, Ned did what Pentax's marketing department was SUPPOSED to do, ie advise Pentax what they should include as features on their cameras.

I fail to see HOW on earth you get the idea that Pentax's marketing didn't work WHEN IT PLAINLY DID WORK and work well and not only that, their engineering department was able to make it work.

[*isteve]

Hmmpff. My experience is the oposite (my 31 Limited is absolutely brilliant on digital). The most purple (and green!) fringing lens I've seen is the "digital ready" DA* 16-50/2.8 lens.

PF is not the same as CA, the 16-50 has far less PF and more CA, but the CA is easy to remove in PP whereas the PF is not. The 31 is indeed and excellent lens - probably the best FA lens ever made though my nod goes to the 43 - but many FA/F/A lenses were not in the same class and their performance on digital is disappointing - even for some of the quite expensive ones.

As for the 16-50, which is actually cheaper than the 31 and a zoom, its only fair to compare its performance at 31mm where sharpness, resolution, CA and vignetting are all comparable at F2.8 upwards. Bokeh is a little better on the 31, but the 16-50 has a bunch of other focal lengths to play with. I would argue that the 16-50 also competes head on with the 43 and 50 F1.4 as well. Its only real issues are all at wide angle, but its better at 16mm than the 31!!!

So your point is?

[Lance B]

He was just the only one who cared to listen what customers are complaining about... And it was only because we did complain - not because Pentax all of a sudden decided to implement that by itself

How dare you make the statement that "Ned was the only one who was listening to what customers were complaining about" when you have absolutely *NO* evidence. How the hell do you know that for a fact? Can you back that statement up with hard facts?

Who is Pentax if their marketing department is not included, as you seem to think, which Ned heads up in the US? How do you actually know that Pentax weren't considering it anyway and because Ned was part of their marketing that they decided to listen to him?

You are arguing for the sake of an argument.

He writes "us" - but it is clear that honor goes to him...

So, who cares HOW many it was? As long as it happened. And how do *you* know if it was a 5 to 3 vote(or whatever the voting process is) at Pentax Japan against the feature and therefore Ned's request was what made them decide to include it. You are flawed argument is quite unbelieveable.

[jsherman999]

No - I only run multiple corporate companies - all linked via Terminal Server
have consultants with state of the art laptops connected to central servers via 3g hsdpa and that can also be accessed by cellphone to retrieve database data and Excel spreadsheets.

All items in office wifi and bluetooth connected - linkages to Satallite feeds.

All cellphones have GPS, 5mp cameras as well.

I have combat weapons with lazer sights, night vision et al


d

Sounds like a hell of a company.

[Lance B]

yes, certainly you do not have an idea because I was replying to Lance B ("...So, don't *think* you know better than Pentax and their engineers and marketers.." - note how Pentax and engineers going first in his posting)

You can't be serious? Are you seriously suggesting that because I put engineers first it somehow makes it less valid than if I put marketers first?

that we got AF adjustments in K20D only because we (customers) complained strong enough and only because we were lucky that Ned B decided to try to advocate for us, but that was/is his personal virtue - not virtue of the company he works for

You have no idea.

[Blue]

Neverthesless it was the right technical decision. Canon had very little choice and went from a relatively small player to a major force partly as a result of this change.

Like I said to take the actions of a company personally is simply childish. It may be annoying but they owe you nothing and you get to vote with your wallet if you are not happy. Thats business.

I don't think the decision was right or wrong per se. What the problem really was is that the FD was the first decent mount Canon had and about the time the perfected it, they canned. The didn't really dominate the market immediately when they switched.

Canon still screws around with the electronics in the EF mount over time. Older EF lens may or may not work on newer EOS bodies.

They did well in spite of the switch. I remember everyone running around with freaking Minolta Maxuums including grand father and dad. I seemed to get better results with my manual pentax stuff. Minolta came out of the eighties ahead of the game on the upper consumer auto-focus, but manual focus was king among pros and enthusiasts. Minolta and Pentax flounder by the mid 90s and Nikon was busy with its head in the clouds and Canon blew by them, and kept the momentum going when digital hit. Canon had their hand it a lot of things including consumer printers, scanners etc. They marketed their stuff like cheap beer companies and used much of the same strategy. Samsung was a joke in the eighties in electronics and now they are a force.

All the manufactures have some sweet lens and features and they all have some goof-ball stuff. That includes the past and present. I have seen companies with good tech fold and others with mediocre stuff do well. Look at Beta vs. VHS as an example.

This is just my perspective from watching stuff unfold over the last 30 years and much of it is based on anecdotal evidence.

But back to the point, I don't think the switch to the EF mount was magical. I think the distance from the mount to the film plane/sensor is what has been good for Canon regarding the EF mount. I think they would be even stronger had they stayed with FD and incorporated the electronics in into it.

I like to see more the one option on the market. Competition is good. I would like to see all the manufacturers stay strong.

Pentax has always been a company that at times has pushed the envelope with revolutionary designs. Pentax showed everyone what a camera was supposed to look like in 1957 and have always loaded them with features at a better price to the buyer than the others. I think Canon and Nikon sort of forgot about Pentax during the past 10 years . . . and then came along the k20d and k200d and rumors of the 645d.

[Blue]

Sounds like a hell of a company.

Sounds like an armored division or aircraft carrier.

[Wheatfield]

That does not mean that either are not good or even excellent lenses, just that they are not perfect. But like I said, an objective opinion seems to be beyond some people when it comes to sacred cows. The 31LTD is not my favourite lens, but its close.

Neverthesless it was the right technical decision. Canon had very little choice and went from a relatively small player to a major force partly as a result of this change.

Like I said to take the actions of a company personally is simply childish. It may be annoying but they owe you nothing and you get to vote with your wallet if you are not happy. Thats business.

I'm not sure why the 31mm lens is in discussion here. I mentioned the entire lens line, I'm not picking one lens and saying it makes the argument, why are you picking one and saying it invalidates it?
Other than point scoring, do you have a point to make here?

Canon deliberately changed the register distance to render FD lenses unusable on EOS camera. Whether it was the right technical decision or not is moot.
When a photographer invests a huge chunk of money into a company, there is an expectation that the company will support that decision.
This is where Canon failed their loyal customer base.
They continue to do it by changing coding in their firmware so that 3rd party accessories regularly quit working when mounted to newer cameras. This is especially a problem for Sigma lens owners.
Pentax understands that to a certain extent (though not completely), Nikon gets it. though not to the extent Pentax does, Hell, even Sony seems to have figured that one out, surprisingly.

Why do you think it is childish to make a business decision to not buy from a company that has a history of screwing their customers? For me, it is just smart to steer clear of that type of company.

[séamuis]

I'm not sure why the 31mm lens is in discussion here. I mentioned the entire lens line, I'm not picking one lens and saying it makes the argument, why are you picking one and saying it invalidates it?
Other than point scoring, do you have a point to make here?

Canon deliberately changed the register distance to render FD lenses unusable on EOS camera. Whether it was the right technical decision or not is moot.
When a photographer invests a huge chunk of money into a company, there is an expectation that the company will support that decision.
This is where Canon failed their loyal customer base.
They continue to do it by changing coding in their firmware so that 3rd party accessories regularly quit working when mounted to newer cameras. This is especially a problem for Sigma lens owners.
Pentax understands that to a certain extent (though not completely), Nikon gets it. though not to the extent Pentax does, Hell, even Sony seems to have figured that one out, surprisingly.

Why do you think it is childish to make a business decision to not buy from a company that has a history of screwing their customers? For me, it is just smart to steer clear of that type of company.

Agreed. and I find it highly surprising that Sony would be mentioned as such, they are usually the king of proprietary equipment and screwing people over.

[vinzer]

Agreed. and I find it highly surprising that Sony would be mentioned as such, they are usually the king of proprietary equipment and screwing people over.

In all fairness, Sony hasn't screwed up Minolta's Alpha mount. But maybe that was a decision made so that they have a Minolta user base to use as a springboard. Good decision to keep the mount alive. Not only does it make Minolta users happy that their lenses can still be used with new bodies, it gives the Sony line a sense of heritage, with 4/3 the odd man out when it comes to old lens compatibility (at least without the need for adapters and limiting the scope to lenses of the past 20 years or so).

Well, they kept Minolta's proprietary hotshoe.