[pingflood]

Pingflood:

You say that the 40D has some great long glass. Please explain why it's so great when it costs as much as the 40D itself. I know that you CAN afford these kinds of things (due to you having a 1DS II) but a lot of us aren't half as rich as you.

Well, my purported riches aside, let's look at the glass.

Pentax has in long tele currently:

200/2.8
300/4

And that's it.

Canon has:

200/2 IS
200/2.8
200/4
300/2.8 IS
300/4 IS
400/2.8 IS
400/4 IS
400/5.6
500/4 IS
600/4 IS
800/5.6 IS
100-400/4.5-5.6 IS

(and that's leaving out all the 70-200, 75-300, 70-300 etc options)

I can't be arsed to look up pricing on all of this, but I know for instance the 100-400 IS around $1400 or so (used to be a lot less before the recent price hike) and there's really nothing equivalent in Pentax land. I suppose you could stick a 1.4X TC on the mythical 60-250 but that lens isn't exactly cheap either! The 300/4 is a fairly direct comparison with the Pentax one, and the Pentax is what, $930, while the Canon is $1210. The difference other than price is that the Canon model is full frame, and has built in IS which may or may not be better than in-body IS at longer focal lengths. So for $300 more you get full frame compatibility and in-lens stabilization. Not such a terrible deal is it?

Going back to swimming in my pool of gold coins now...

[kenyee]

You missed the Pentax 600/4 for a paltry $6500...still in production and can be ordered but ch...uhhh, frugal pentaxians wouldn't
Each system has their "great" lenses. On Canon, I'd include the 70-200/4 which is sharp wide open. On Nikon, the 24-70, 14-24, and 70-200. What's good on Pentax should be obvious ;-)

[Jesus]

There should be a new forum labeled " Nervous & Insecure ".
For a brief moment I begin to think I need to switch cameras too when reading such threads , it triggers my nerves and insecurities within me , for 90 seconds .

These people probably go from owning one car to another , girl friend to the next , never really happy with what they have , always criticizing .
It's a very very small percent of people who are like this .
They wnat Pentax to come clean with their intentions for the future so they can figure out weather to stay or not .
I wonder what Pentax thinks when reading such threads , maybe wondering why they attract so many weirdos , insecure , nervous people .

Something like that

[nulla]

Well I actually think that lenses are the stand out feature of Pentax and is what made me decide on what camera to get.

In the end you only need what you can use and unless you want everything in front of you to pick up use and select then buy you do have the option of buying online and for me I had no problems in waiting for shipping from overseas (turnaround of a few days) for lenses that I first read about as much as possible on this very site and determined if it was going to suit my needs. No pushy salesperson.. just good sense from knowledgeable people within this site helped me with each lens choice... which by the way I still have every lens purchased and I am still in the process of building my arsenal... and of course I am as happy as with each purchase so far.

All have been what I needed and what I thought would help me in the type of shooting I prefer


Hope this helps


cheers

Neil

[pingflood]

You missed the Pentax 600/4 for a paltry $6500...still in production and can be ordered but ch...uhhh, frugal pentaxians wouldn't
Each system has their "great" lenses. On Canon, I'd include the 70-200/4 which is sharp wide open. On Nikon, the 24-70, 14-24, and 70-200. What's good on Pentax should be obvious ;-)

Yeah, the Canon 70-200 is great. I have 4 prints of our pets hanging a few feet from me (taken with that lens and a 10D) here in the kitchen and they are obscenely sharp and detailed. All shot wide open.

Pentax definitely has the best kit lens though... I was really impressed with how well it performed on the K20D (the original 18-55, not the new version). Canon's 18-55...yeah, talk about coke bottle.

[jct us101]

The new Canon kit is pretty good too now though, it would have been nice if they gave it a focusing ring, but the IS works very well.

[pingflood]

The new Canon kit is pretty good too now though, it would have been nice if they gave it a focusing ring, but the IS works very well.

Yeah, haven't tried that one out (neither body I own will mount it; the 1Ds because it's full frame and the 10D because it predates the EF-S mount) but I hear it's decent. No focusing ring at all though, huh? That's a little cruddy.

[jct us101]

You're free to give me your 10D if you have little use for it, just saying...

[pingflood]

I actually love the old thing. Used to own one back when they were modern, then sold it and went all analog. Finally wandered back into digital (via Samsung/Pentax) and when my 1Ds2 shutter crapped out (at 23k actuations, only goes to show that Canon can screw things up too -- but they did fix it for free) and I had to be without it for a trip I picked up a mint 10D locally just to have something to shoot with. Ended up falling in love with it all over again, and while it's a basic 6MP camera with slooooow bootup times, it can still hold its own as long as you keep the ISO at 800 or below.

If you really want one, you can get them for <$200 these days. Nobody wants them because they are "obsolete" but if you can put up with it taking 3 seconds to "boot up" after you power it on it's still an excellent camera. Probably has the most quiet shutter of all the Canon DSLRs. In contrast, my 1Ds2 makes sure that everyone within 50 feet knows that a picture was just taken.

[stewart_photo]

Well, my purported riches aside, let's look at the glass.

Pentax has in long tele currently:

200/2.8
300/4

And that's it. (snip)

Lets be realistic here. People going out of their way to purchase a budget DSLR are not exactly planning to rush out to spend a fortune on absurdly expensive telephoto lenses. Given that, the market for $1500+ telephoto lenses is small, at best. However, there are certainly far greater options then what you describe above

PENTAX DA Star 200mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM
PENTAX DA Star 300mm F4 ED(IF) SDM
PENTAX DA Star 60-250mm F4 ED (IF) SDM
PENTAX DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED
PENTAX DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED
PENTAX DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 ED AL(IF)

Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO
Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro
Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG IF
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG HSM APO
Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM APO
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro

Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD
Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD
Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD

Add in manual focus lenses, from companies like Vivitar, and the options extend all the way up to 1300mm or perhaps greater.

stewart

[OregonJim]

Very true.

Same goes for wedding photography (photojournalistic type). Autofocus is a main concern.

What did wedding photographers and photojournalists do before autofocus existed? The ability to quickly snap a subject into focus manually (even a fast-moving subject) is an acquired and valuable photographic skill. So is predictive focusing. Once learned, the whole autofocus argument goes away. It seems to me that anyone who is serious about their images would be in manual mode (both exposure & focus) 99% of the time anyway. Those who rely heavily on autofocus seem to also be the ones who shoot 2,500 frames in a weekend just to come back with 3 or 4 keepers. The art & craft of photography has certainly changed over the last decade or so (just my opinions - not intending to flame anyone)...

[Canada_Rockies]

What did wedding photographers and photojournalists do before autofocus existed? The ability to quickly snap a subject into focus manually (even a fast-moving subject) is an acquired and valuable photographic skill. So is predictive focusing. Once learned, the whole autofocus argument goes away. It seems to me that anyone who is serious about their images would be in manual mode (both exposure & focus) 99% of the time anyway. Those who rely heavily on autofocus seem to also be the ones who shoot 2,500 frames in a weekend just to come back with 3 or 4 keepers. The art & craft of photography has certainly changed over the last decade or so (just my opinions - not intending to flame anyone)...

Hear Hear. I still shoot sports in single frame mode. I go for the definitive moment rather than the machine gun approach.

[simico]

Same goes for wedding photography (photojournalistic type). Autofocus is a main concern.

Huh? I've been at a lot of weddings (including my own one ) and I've yet to seen any fast "sport" action needing blazing fast AF (or AF at all). Weddings must be very different over there (or here?) if "autofocus is a main concern"

[jct us101]

Must be all the weddings for speed dating.

[RioRico]

Hear Hear. I still shoot sports in single frame mode. I go for the definitive moment rather than the machine gun approach.

Back in the day, I graduated from boxcam PNS shooting to 'serious' photography with a 1934 Kodak Retina 117 with Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 50mm f/3.5 lens. [ See its like here: Kodak Retina 117, 35mm folding camera 1934 ] No SLR, no RF, just VF. Wide open, with the slow slow films I favored, DOF wasn't deep, so accurate focusing was vital. I learned to eyeball distances, first by pacing off yards (I'm tall and take long steps), then by visually marking yards or body-lengths to a subject.

I still do that with MF lenses, like fact-checking the K20D's focus system, as I'll sometimes see the focus lights flash at inappropriate distances, especially in low light. Or I'll pace from subject to shooting point and set the focus, just to be sure. 35mm AF is what, 30 years old? It's just a different mindset. Oh yeah, with the Retina, even though I metered, I also learned to visually judge light and exposure. But I don't try to second-guess the K20D on that.