[Ratmagiclady]

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....

I think the problem with Nikon is that of the newer lenses, you can't get anything with decent spec and full compatibility without dropping a lot on a body, so they get the money you may not have one way or another, ...I suspect if I'd ever had the lump sum for a D200 or D300, I'd have gone Nikon in recent years, but there's a catch-22: pay a lot for amateur-spec lenses or pay five times what you'd have spent on an FE2 to get ...old school aperture priority and manual focus...

I mean, let's put it this way: finding a couple of nice old Nikkors in a pawnshop *paid* for my K20d. I drop two hundred on an FA 50 1.4, and I'm cooking with gas.

[pentkon52]

Just the opposite for me. Those who own Nikon usually purchase Nikor lenses.

As I do.:-)

Some Tamron and many Sigma lenses are world class quality. I am surprised you would apologize for mentioning those brands. We are not talking about no-name brand lenses.

The 1-2 i do own work quite well, and am happy with them.

Dave

[Buffy]

I see you have an interesting collection of lenses. That f/.9 probably cost more than all my lenses combined.

Interesting is just one word I'd use for his lens collection. "Fictitious" is another!

[Ratmagiclady]

Interesting is just one word I'd use for his lens collection. "Fictitious" is another!

Hi, Buffy!

I think we can safely say these are all jokes:

Pentax 645D III
*12-600mm F/2.8
*50mm F/0.9
*3mm F/3.5 FE
*400mm F/2.8 4:1 macr


Though there are a few .9ish lenses out there, there was a 1.0 Noct-Nikkor, and Canon had a special .95 for the old rangefinders. (Better hope your RF adjustment is good, eh? )

[Kerrowdown]

Not all focal lengths at various apertures are covered by one manufacturer, mix and match to suit your needs, it's great to be able to have choice.

[egordon99]

With Canon, it was either spend $1000 for the 35mm f/1.4 L or $400 for the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Guess which one I chose?

[Class A]

what's the point if you cannot afford the lenses from the same manufacturer made for your camera body?

What's the point of buying the lenses from same manufacturer of your camera body?

All lens manufacturers have stellar performers and lemons. One would be silly not to play the cherry picking game.

After having one Tamron lens...I'll never have another.

Well, you said yourself how irrational such a position is. Why should one stay away from Pentax after having been handed a bad copy of a 16-50?

And you may be buying a (rebadged) Tamron lens, when buying a Pentax lens.

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.

Someone who compared the Tamron 18-250 with the Pentax rebadge couldn't see a difference between the coatings. Frankly, it would surprise me if indeed two different coating versions were maintained (mass production!) but certainly I don't have any hard evidence to the contrary.

[tranq78]

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!

What you describe is version of a deplorable sales technique called Bait-and-Switch.

Convince the unsuspecting consumer that Nikon and Canon are the best. It plays on the human trait that we feel better about ourselves when we associate with the "winning" team.

And you do want to buy the best, don't you Sir/Madam? Well then you need to buy this brand because all the pro's use it. Oh, after you've bought the camera you realized you can't afford the pro-spec lenses? That's OK because we have these other very affordable lenses right over here, they're not VR but let me convince you that you don't really need that feature, it's only for pro's...

Yuck.

I bought Pentax because it offers the best value, defined by me as the best price to performance ratio. Your mileage will differ as everyone's utility curve is different.

[ryan s]

What's the point of buying the lenses from same manufacturer of your camera body?


Well, you said yourself how irrational such a position is. Why should one stay away from Pentax after having been handed a bad copy of a 16-50?

And you may be buying a (rebadged) Tamron lens, when buying a Pentax lens.

OEM > aftermarket...in the same way, I'd rather see some red-and-white-labeled parts from Honda and some gray boxes from Pentax.

Blaming Pentax for the 16-50 is like blaming Vivitar for producing a bad lens back in the 70s...they just rebadged.

The 16-50 is really the only AF lens that interests me at the moment. I'll go for it because it's not like a poorly built car...I can live without the lens...they can give me a whole new unit. After all I've seen with Chryslers, I'll never own another, as an example.

[res3567]

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?

I learned on a Pentax K1000 with a F/2.0 50mm lens. I then purchased a Pentax ZX50 with a 35-80F/4.0-5.6 kit lens. After that I purchased a Sigma 28-105 F/2.8-4.0. The two bodies and 3 lenses all work together in some way. At least the lenses mount to the bodies albiet without newer functions on the lens and or body. My next logical choice was to purchase a digital body that will accept these lenses, my K10D. I then aquired a treasure chest of old Pentax lenses from a kind gentlemen who was cleaning out his attic. All work well on my K10D. That is the beuty of Pentax; full backward compatibility as for the lenses mounting to the body. In my chest I have six lenses all manual focus from 28mm to a 500mm F8, including a manual 2x teleconconverter. I hav a total of nine lenses which cost me next to nothing. My biggest expense was my K10D body and grip! Well woth the investment! Only two of these lenses are Pentax. The best one in the lineup is my Five Star 75-200mm KA! How delighted I was to see to electrical contacts on the lens and the camera communicates flawlessly with that lens! No green button metering which can be a pain with the older lenses. Get whatever lens you want and be proud if it gets you the images you desire. Dont worry about what other people think!

[Marc Sabatella]

Blaming Pentax for the 16-50 is like blaming Vivitar for producing a bad lens back in the 70s...they just rebadged.

It looks like you're implying the Pentax 16-50 is a rebadge of a lens built by someone else. This isn't true. There has been considerable confusion regarding the relationship between Pentax and Tokina on this lens (as well as the others that were announced as having joint involvement), but as far as I know, the story seems to be that Pentax basically designed the lenses and licensed the design to Tokina, and they each build their own lenses from this design.

The one Pentax lens that *is* just a rebadge is the 18-250, which of course is really a Tamron in virtually all respects.

[emalvick]

Going back to some of the original themes here, I'm not sure where buying a certain brand of body implies you should buy that same brand of lens.

You should get the best of each world that is the best for you.

For my money, the k10d was the camera for me. The attraction: backward compatibility with older lens. For newer lens, I look at quality. For the money the Tamron Lenses perform as well as the Pentax Lenses. What that means is that for the 17-50 f2.8 vs. the 16-50 f2.8, the Tamron is more than adequate. Even if it isn't as good as the Pentax it is half the price but definitely better than half the quality (close to the same quality really).

I do wish I could get more Pentax lenses, but as long as I see that Tamron has quality performers out there, economics is going to play quite a factor in my selection and I will balance quality vs. price.

If I could have afforded more when I bought the k10d, I probably would have went Nikon or Canon, but in retrospect, I am glad I didn't. If I ever end up with enough money in the future, I'll stick with Pentax and channel the money to better lenses without a worry for what brand they are as long as they meet my expectations.

[Photomy]

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?

There are many lenses made by these three that are better as to optical quality than the Pentax closest offering. I would like to buy a Tokina 11-16 2.8 because of excellent optical tests that are way above others in this range, but I cannot on my Pentax body.

[res3567]

It looks like you're implying the Pentax 16-50 is a rebadge of a lens built by someone else. This isn't true. There has been considerable confusion regarding the relationship between Pentax and Tokina on this lens (as well as the others that were announced as having joint involvement), but as far as I know, the story seems to be that Pentax basically designed the lenses and licensed the design to Tokina, and they each build their own lenses from this design.

The one Pentax lens that *is* just a rebadge is the 18-250, which of course is really a Tamron in virtually all respects.

Isn't the Tokina 10-17 F/3.5-4.5 a rebadged Pentax with different mounts for Canon and Nikon?

[Marc Sabatella]

Isn't the Tokina 10-17 F/3.5-4.5 a rebadged Pentax with different mounts for Canon and Nikon?

My understanding is that this one is also like the 16-50 - Pentax and Tokina share the optical design, but each builds their own lenses.