[Big G]

The new guy is the Sigma 50/1.4 which is brand spankin' new and a fantastic performer.

Looks like a great lens, meant to have stunning image quality, but a little big and heavy (I like big and heavy though).

Ignore Damn Brit too. He is the worst kind of Pentax fanboy!. He is the type that is right most of the time!

Besides, he only think that Pentax is good because he owns a camera that I touched.

......I love you too Gary

LOL, I wish I was right more often, it would keep me out of the doodoo I get myself into sometimes.
Next time I see you can you check the length of my zoom?

[pingflood]

Looks like a great lens, meant to have stunning image quality, but a little big and heavy (I like big and heavy though).

Yes, it's a huge bastard. Looks at home on my 1-series but kind of silly on the 50D or any other similarly sized camera.

And yes, the IQ is stunning -- wonderfully sharp and the bokeh is quite something else. I would highly recommend it.

[Big G]

must .... resist .... buying .... more .... excellent .... Sigma lenses ....



Got a link to some samples?

[pingflood]

must .... resist .... buying .... more .... excellent .... Sigma lenses ....



Got a link to some samples?

Unfortunately I am in Atlanta for work and my Lightroom computer is in SC, but I posted a couple of shots from right when I got it here...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/66440-sigmalux-bokeh.html

[Big G]

Love it, nice and creamy.

[cousinsane]

Kind of preaching to the choir :P

I'd assume most people reading this post are Pentax users.

[robgo2]

Its so funny how people defend Nikon and Canon just from pride. I too was involoved in the Nikon and Canon pride groups but times change and so do world champions. I still see people talk of Bjon Borg and John Mcenroe as being better then Roger Frederer. Maybe they were, but for now, Roger plays better tennis. I recall when Ferrari and Lamborghini were the only two sports cars in contention for the best sports car discussion. Porsche owners always used to sit back and lough while they enjoyed their cars in performance and reliability. Then came Audi with the R8 and many would be Ferrari and Lamborghini owners switched. audi r8 - Google Images

No one in the right state of mind will buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini or Audi R8 by reading reviews or looking at specs only, or ask others about their test drive experiences they will go test drive them first. Its time Nikon and Canon owners stopped the bashing of the Pentax and tried the camera first hand. That is what I did and I made the switch as did my daughter. Bash the Pentax k-7 all you want, but once you personally actually take pictures with it, then you will understand that the negativity you see from some people will not mean anything because in most cases, you will be taking greater pictures with the Pentax k-7.

Using insanely expensive super-cars as an analogy for digital SLRs probably does not resonate with very many members of this forum. What world do you live in?

Rob

[séamuis]

Seamuis,

As much as like many of your posts and your avatars I think that you are being a little bit unrealistic here. You know that you are holding your argument from a very thin hair. Most of the people that would care for prime lens will never buy their gear at MSRP. And I have read your post and I know what you are referring to. If you look to pure MSRP some of the prices of the last Pentax lenses are just plain rubbishing (did I hear Pentax 55 f1,4? or 60-250?).

But you have a point, if I try to buy a pentax 50 from adorama via amazon it costs a whopping 337 USD while BH seems to have at 250USD. Almost 100 USD from 2 of the most reputable dealers.

For those who dont have one I urge them to run to buy it now while they can. As soon as Pentax stops to make them they are going to increase their prices on the used market quite a bit.

but you all are missing my point. it was never about comparing prices of lenses, specifically for purchasing consideration it was about the FA 50 still being competitively priced despite being 18 years old. the MSRP comparison was to show that despite the fact that from an optical design standpoint virtually all 50's are very close and based on very old designs, yet they all still command a price of around 300 bucks. the only thing setting the canon EF apart from the FA is the inclusion of USM, a price for which at MSRP you are paying a premium for. there by showing that even though the price may have jumped on the FA its still a fair price regardless of age. my point was getting lost in peoples attempts to defend this or that concerning what they pay.

What a great thread! This baby feels alive with tension and smack-down.

Hey since we are talkin' prices of these fancy pants lenses...

Anyone want to have a photo post-off between your $750/800 dollar DA* 55-1.4 and my $20 dollar 58mm Helios 44M...

I am up for a challenge.... You wanna piece of me StaR BoY? Let's go

Next time I see you can you check the length of my zoom?

I will and I will give it Mirror Lens-like properties.... you know, big where it matters...

[séamuis]

What a great thread! This baby feels alive with tension and smack-down.

Hey since we are talkin' prices of these fancy pants lenses...

Anyone want to have a photo post-off between your $750/800 dollar DA* 55-1.4 and my $20 dollar 58mm Helios 44M...

I am up for a challenge.... You wanna piece of me StaR BoY? Let's go

screw that plastic armored DA wimp, my Takumar 55 can destroy your oversized overweight helios any day of the week. and dont let my Macro-Takumar 50 get in the fight because it will be short and sweet. and not in a good way for your soviet socialist behemoth.

but you all are missing my point. it was never about comparing prices of lenses, specifically for purchasing consideration it was about the FA 50 still being competitively priced despite being 18 years old. the MSRP comparison was to show that despite the fact that from an optical design standpoint virtually all 50's are very close and based on very old designs, yet they all still command a price of around 300 bucks. the only thing setting the canon EF apart from the FA is the inclusion of USM, a price for which at MSRP you are paying a premium for. there by showing that even though the price may have jumped on the FA its still a fair price regardless of age. my point was getting lost in peoples attempts to defend this or that concerning what they pay.

Guilty,
I am afraid that i didnt get your point. And I am not sure if I get it. Your argument has 2 parts and whenever I understand one I am lost in the other.
It is the 50 f1.4 competitively priced compare to Canon, Nikon, Sony....yes
Does the age matter when it comes to lens design?.... it depends, in this case I would say no.
Can USM be considered an improvement to some of them that think that AF is a good thing?....you bet
It is the 50 f1.4 a bargain after the price increase compare to the Canon, Nikon equivalent...no
It is the 50 f1.4 a bargain compared to the 55 f1.4.... hell yes
It is the 55f1.4 competitively priced against anything....no
Is it there any explanation to increase the MSRP by 50% other than to carry on with the current trend of Hoya to make Pentax more "valuable"...no.

I guess that I am running in circles and I am dizzy.

This is going too fast.

I am always late to the interesting developments.

I offer myself as a referee for a showdown between Gus and Seamuis. Japan vs URSS. Takumar vs Helios. The battle of the fifties... miniskirts are allowed but rockabilliy hairdoes are strictly prohibited.

Pentax 55 and Sigma 50 candidates are required for the other semifinal. Anyone?

[séamuis]

Guilty,
I am afraid that i didnt get your point. And I am not sure if I get it. Your argument has 2 parts and whenever I understand one I am lost in the other.
It is the 50 f1.4 competitively priced compare to Canon, Nikon, Sony....yes
Does the age matter when it comes to lens design?.... it depends, in this case I would say no.
Can USM be considered an improvement to some of them that think that AF is a good thing?....you bet
It is the 50 f1.4 a bargain after the price increase compare to the Canon, Nikon equivalent...no
It is the 50 f1.4 a bargain compared to the 55 f1.4.... hell yes
It is the 55f1.4 competitively priced against anything....no
Is it there any explanation to increase the MSRP by 50% other than to carry on with the current trend of Hoya to make Pentax more "valuable"...no.

I guess that I am running in circles and I am dizzy.

this is what I initially responded to:

To be blunt though, Pentax has pissed me off as of late. The lens price increases... what was that? Why is an FA50 now $300 instead of $200 for an almost twenty year old lens design? Pricing your equipment up there with the big boys does not automatically enter you into their club.

what I was originally trying to point out was that being 18 years old is virtually irrelevant concerning price-point when talking about a 50mm lens. (they are all old FF optical designs) I think its only right to compare MSRP, because its the only price that shows what the manufacturer says the lens is worth. (its worth to users is debatable but not relevant) I just used canon as an example of a competing brand. it had nothing to do really with the recent price increase other than to show that its still competitive. and it had nothing to do with prices between manufacturers regarding specs. it was to show that they are all about the same. it got de-railed when pingflood attempted to skew my point in an attempt to, what I assume was to defend canon and their prices.

long point short: they are all old designs, they all cost around the same give or take and that being an 18 year old series is of no relevance in price point.

what if they took the FA 50 and redid its shell, same optical design, maybe added some new fancy DA series coatings. still same lens no? would be worth 300 bucks then? maybe added SDM and set the price near canons MSRP. (yes I know street price would be lower) worth it? age of the lens series is of no relevance since pentax can still use and still sells screw-driven AF lenses.