[Syb]

Optical quality aside, I find it hard to understand the reasoning of someone that chooses to invest in a camera system on the basis that in-lens stabilization works better than in-body stabilization. Then, they buy lenses that have no stabilization at all.

The way I see it, if we both have 5 lenses in our bags. They probably have 2 stabilized lenses and the rest non-stabilized. All of mine are stabilized. You tell me which is the better choice.

That depends on the SR quality in those two lenses. Honestly, I do not know the SR in lenses by other brands, but I read that Pentax SR is not as good as the SR-systems in Canon or Nikon. I have only Pentax and do not complain about my SR btw.

[alohadave]

It doesn't surprise me at all.

What does surprise me is Pentax camera users buying third party glass. For me, the whole reason for shooting Pentax is because I can use Pentax glass.

Third-party has it's place. I love my Sigma 10-20, but I also love my 16-45. It depends on what lenses fit your needs.

Just because it's labeled Pentax doesn't make it a great lens, and as we know some lenses are simply re-badged third-party designs.

[Wheatfield]

Let me show You why! Example:
Tamron 17-50/2.8 ~ 400$
Pentaf-DA 16-50/2.8 ~700$

Tamron 70-200/2.8 ~ 700$ + better reach
Pentax 50-135mm/2.8 ~ 800$

Only Pentax primes are incomparable to 3rd party primes and worth extra money.
I think Pentax users are just like N or C users, they use the best price/performance lens.

The point being that Pentax cameras are near the bottom of the performance ladder, so why not choose a better performing body since you aren't using first party glass anyway?

[Wheatfield]

Third-party has it's place. I love my Sigma 10-20, but I also love my 16-45. It depends on what lenses fit your needs.

Just because it's labeled Pentax doesn't make it a great lens, and as we know some lenses are simply re-badged third-party designs.

There have been a number of lenses that have been co-developed with other lens makers, but from what I understand, the third party versions don't get Pentax SMC.

[mysterick]

It would be interesting if Hoya would make SMC lenses to fit Canon and Nikon bodies. Would the SMC lens be a 3rd party choice for those users? Would SMC glass folks move to those camera brands?

[rfortson]

Most of my friends use either Canon or Nikon. No surprises there. However, I noticed that most of the Nikon users (not so much the Canon users) end up with Tamron or Sigma lenses on their D300 or D700 body because the Nikon lenses are so darn expensive! While me with my K20D, I am able to afford quality Pentax lenses!

Ok, before you shoot me down on Tamron and Sigma lenses, yes I know some are really good quality but what's the point if you cannot afford the lenses from the same manufacturer made for your camera body?

Pentax, Sigma, and Tamron (and I'll assume Canon and Nikon as well) all make very good lenses, and some crappy lenses. No need to worry about the name in front. It's more useful to worry about the name in back of the camera.

[pentaxmz]

My thoughts exactly.

After having one Tamron lens...I'll never have another. (We're talking new plastic ones...the ones with SP on them are a spit in the face to the solid metal vintage SPs).

The problem with Tamron is that they make both cheap lenses and expensive lenses.

Back in 2000, I purchased a 50th Anniversary Tamron SP Autofocus 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical (IF) Lens. This is a beautiful and well respected lens. The only caveat is that it was designed for a film camera so I lose the semi-wide angle. :-(

[ryan s]

What is the purpose of a lens? Using it as an umbrella or taking a good pictures? I don't have full pockets of money and there are many amateur photographers like me, so I'd better choose cheaper lens with a same or similar optical performance and buy another lens for the rest of the money. Of course, better for me would be a cheaper 16-50/2.8 Pentax lens without sealing and sdm - it's the optical quality why I love Pentax, not extra features. If I would be a fast autofocus and sealed lens freak, I'd go for a C*non and L lenses.
Those who need extra features buy DA* lenses, those who don't have enough money and don't need SDM and WS have to choose a 3rd party lens, because there is no fast Pentax budget lenses as Tamron 17-50

Wait wait wait...first off...do you see the lenses in my sig? Are there any newer than the mid-80s? No...because I can get older lenses that are quality for cheap. I know all about old lenses which brings me to...

I see you have an interesting collection of lenses. That f/.9 probably cost more than all my lenses combined. Now, I don't know what the weather's like in Latvia (never been there), but here we have wind, rain, snow, salt, sand, humidity, heat and cold. I would never risk an expensive lens like that in weather like I'm having right now. Which means...

It makes more sense to have a sealed lens for me so I can actually go out. Because now...even sprinkles could ruin a lens even though the body is fine. I know the 16-50 is expensive...that's why I don't have one yet. When I do get it, it'll be nice to have a "throw-around" lens that can take any and all usage.

Plus, Pentax is trying to wean us from backwards compatibility....taking away aperture recognition from M lenses for starters. Their next move will be to remove screw-AF from the bodies, making them only SDM. Since camera bodies are more expendable than lenses, wouldn't SDM make sense?

I don't mean to sound personal...just stating my opinion

The problem with Tamron is that they make both cheap lenses and expensive lenses.

Back in 2000, I purchased a 50th Anniversary Tamron SP Autofocus 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical (IF) Lens. This is a beautiful and well respected lens. The only caveat is that it was designed for a film camera so I lose the semi-wide angle. :-(

I had a cheap one (dirt cheap)...and I know you can't judge a whole brand on one model...it just left a bad taste in my mouth. It will take a little while before I'll think of upping for a top-model Tamron...

[tomtor]

Tamron 70-200/2.8 ~ 700$ + better reach
Pentax 50-135mm/2.8 ~ 800$

Longer reach, ok, but better? Not if you prefer 50-70 over 135-200 as I do.

It all depends on your main intended usage. 70-200 is perhaps nicer for sports, 50-135 is nicer for public events where you'll miss the 50-70 if you cannot back up.

[LittleSwans]

Yes, it's true that not all Pentax lenses are better than 3rd party lenses. However, the reason for my post is that in my circle of photographer friends, I hear so many woeful tales of not being able to afford Canon L series lenses or the Nikkor lenses because they cost a fortune. So they have to settle for the Tamron or Sigma equivalent. The Nikon 24-70mm (not exactly sure of the focal length but I think it is this) is more than AUD2500! The Canon 85mm f1.2 is almost AUD3000! Apparently there will be a price increase very soon and it will be over AUD3000!

[heatherslightbox]

For me, the whole package is important. Easy to use, well-built bodies and great lenses=Pentax. Next to me, I have Dad's Canon XSi--he has a couple of L-series lenses (70-200/4 IS and 300/4 IS) among others, but the body, even with the grip, feels plasticky to me and it's not quite as easy to use as either of my bodies

Right now, all of my lenses are Pentax, but I'm debating whether to buy the DFA100 or the Sigma 105 to fill the tele macro gap. Obviously, both are fine lenses, but as good as the 105 is, there's something that keeps drawing me back to the Pentax--maybe I've just become that loyal to the brand.

Heather

[pentaxmz]

The problem with nikon lenses are that their image quality are often no matter than tamron or sigma lenses.

Huh?

Is that just your opinion?

There are thousands of pro photographers who are among the elite in this business and whom would definitely disagree with you.

[GeneV]

Plus, Pentax is trying to wean us from backwards compatibility....taking away aperture recognition from M lenses for starters.

I have to admit that this was the single most disappointing fact I learned after jumping into the Pentax digital world. My primary reason for favoring this brand was that I had a cache of M primes from the 80s that were superb. Because of the quirks of metering with them, I hardly use them at all.

I could do without the AF, or even auto exposure (I hardly ever used it on my LX, though I do now), but I haven't been able to deal with inconsistent TTL metering with a procedure that requires me to go back to the days of the Spotmatic.

[Buffy]

What does surprise me is Pentax camera users buying third party glass. For me, the whole reason for shooting Pentax is because I can use Pentax glass.

I bought my Tamron and Sigma lenses when Pentax had no equivalent affordable glass available. The FA* equivalents to the Tamon 28-75mm, Sigma 70-200mm, and Sigma 300mm go for twice the price or so.

[egordon99]

By "matter", do you mean "better" ?

I've heard that the new 14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (ok the 70-200 isn't as new but....) are pretty incredible. I know of one shooter who swore by (often manual focus) primes but was turned into a AF zoom "believer" by the 24-70....

The problem with nikon lenses are that their image quality are often no matter than tamron or sigma lenses.