[raider]

If budget is tight, there is no need to go after L lenses. Why not just stick with canon's non-L lenses? Are these lenses any less worthy than L lenses in terms of the photography output?

[ftpaddict]

are these lenses any less worthy than l lenses in terms of the photography output?

yes. I know because I've worked with some.

[walro]

The metering on the K20 seems much better than the K10, in my opinion. We've only had the K20 for a couple of days now, but I'm always having to use EV compensation on the K10, and the K20 seems to nail the exposure much better.

[mickey]

I've been thinking about switching back to Pentax and getting a k20d. I can't see spending $$$ on L lens in this economy. Help lure me back. Is the k20d that much better than the k10d I had???

Why did you change from Pentax in the first place??

You obviously knew L lenses don't come cheap, regardless of the economy, when you made the switch.

[egordon99]

Unfortunately, the K20D still has the "bug" where if you spot-meter on a white sail (surrounded by brightly lit sky), you'll get a very underexposed shot.



(interestingly enough, my 40D and Xsi do the same thing )

As for L vs. non-L lenses, there are some excellent non-L primes available for not much money. The Canon 85mm f/1.8 is excellent, and cost only around $400. Then there's the 70-200mm f/4 L ZOOM which is probably the best zoom lens Canon ever made....And the 100-400L is pretty nice too....

Canon makes plenty of lenses where you don't have to break the bank...


Pentax does too....As does Nikon......

[kenyee]

I've been thinking about switching back to Pentax and getting a k20d. I can't see spending $$$ on L lens in this economy. Help lure me back. Is the k20d that much better than the k10d I had???

Without knowing why you left in the first place and why you're thinking of coming back, this thread is pretty much worthless..., so I'll give you $10 for your Canon gear. That's an incentive right there

[Thumper]

Well, I did it, I bought my first L, a 24-105mm. I just can't go backwards in quality.

[Peter Zack]

So the point of all this foolishness was.....?

[KungPOW]

Unfortunately, the K20D still has the "bug" where if you spot-meter on a white sail (surrounded by brightly lit sky), you'll get a very underexposed shot. snip...

Um....

Thats kind of what the camera is suposed to do. If you spot meter on something bright white, you need to bump the exposure up at least two stops.

The camera adjusts everything to 18% grey that gets spot metered. Lights, darks, everything is assumed to be 18% grey.

So if you metered on something black, you need to underexpose 2 stops, or everthing will be over exposed.

[Peter Zack]

Um....

Thats kind of what the camera is suposed to do. If you spot meter on something bright white, you need to bump the exposure up at least two stops.

The camera adjusts everything to 18% grey that gets spot metered. Lights, darks, everything is assumed to be 18% grey.

So if you metered on something black, you need to underexpose 2 stops, or everthing will be over exposed.

KungPOW, I think you missed the sarcasm of the full post. egordon99 wasn't being critical at all.

He also said:

(interestingly enough, my 40D and Xsi do the same thing )

[Peter Zack]

The guy's a dork.

[mickey]

Well, I did it, I bought my first L, a 24-105mm. I just can't go backwards in quality.

Please don't forget to update your lovely bright red sig.

[Digitalis]

Well, I did it, I bought my first L, a 24-105mm. I just can't go backwards in quality.

you could have gotten a FA 31mm f/1.8 limited for that, and let me tell you the FA31 blasts the crap out of the Canon 24-105 zoom in terms of image quality.

[pingflood]

you could have gotten a FA 31mm f/1.8 limited for that, and let me tell you the FA31 blasts the crap out of the Canon 24-105 zoom in terms of image quality.

Problem is the FA31 doesn't handle 24mm or 105mm particularly well.

As far as "blasts the crap" -- I have a 24-105 I use on FF and the only complaint I have is distortion on the wide end (the 24-70 is better in this aspect). But image quality wise it's a frickin' amazing piece of glass. When I viewed the first batch of shots from it wide open my jaw hit the floor, because I've never seen a zoom perform like this. Is it as good as the 31 image quality wise? I would think not, but it holds its own and outperforms quite a few decent primes that I've owned and used.

As for non-L lenses, there are some gems like the 85/1.8 out there. In fact, most of the "mid level" primes are pretty darn decent.

That said, Pentax definitely offers better bang for the buck image quality wise... you can get a K20D and a DA 35 for what, < $1k these days?

But if you're willing to throw some bucks at it, you can get some fantastic gear from Canon (or Nikon). My setup cost a small fortune compared to a basic decent Pentax one, but I do get something for it.

[Digitalis]

Problem is the FA31 doesn't handle 24mm or 105mm particularly well.

the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS doesn't do f/1.8 well either.


I was one of the early adopters of this L zoom from canon, and mine unfortunately had that really nasty flare issue that cropped up...so in my view Canon stuffed up somewhere along the production line with these lenses. Mine was repaired after a month. yes, I agree with you it is a stellar lens, Nikon doesn't have anything that matches it....yet.

BTW pingflood, how is the sinar F1 in terms of finding camera bags to fit it in?...where I am here in OZ I haven't found anything that I can comfortably fit my Ebony 8X10 or 4X5 into.