[braver]

Making a statement "I don't know why anyone would make a investment in Pentax etc." In a Pentax thread forum to me is disrespectful.

It's easy to see I've not said anything like that, especially given I've just made an investment in Pentax. The original post says,

For those of you owning Fuji systems as well as Pentax, how can you justify Pentax investment?

So the question was what are the situations where you'd invest in one vs the other. My own conclusion is, when the criteria is compact, in wide for Fuji and in tele for Pentax. It's easy to imagine situations where I have both around and properly equipped.

A+

---

Last edited by braver; 01-09-2016 at 09:28 PM.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

It is interesting that when you see these system comparative threads in a Pentax forum, it is most often involving Fuji. They share similar strengths in terms of build quality, emphasis on primes, and relative compactness. Other than those who have left Pentax to get into FF (usually Nikon), I am sure that Fuji is the next most-attractive draw. Certainly it is the most alluring alternative from my point of view. Its also interesting to find those who are in both systems, and willing to talk about the comparison.

I agree that many of the observations have been enlightening.

[Rondec]

Just noticed this got moved to non-Pentax lenses. Well, I actually think this is more about Pentax lenses, their advantages and disadvantages vs Fuji. E.g. learned about why Pentax tele lenses smaller. One of the reasons for this thread is to see how Pentax lineup is featured vs Fuji's, already several interesting lenses have come up.

A+

Well, the title is "Fuji APS-C lenses are smaller, faster, and cheaper than Pentax ones." I think a lot of folks read it as a slur on Pentax glass. I think we can agree that Fuji lenses are faster than Pentax lenses, but it is hard to figure out the smaller thing, since lens builds, apertures and focal lengths are often quite different between the lens line ups. The whole "cheaper" issue is beyond me. Most of their lenses seem to be priced higher than equivalent Pentax ones, although I am sure there are specific lenses like the FA 31 that are priced higher than equivalent Fuji lenses.

[Ayrat]

Guys -- I know it will hurt your feelings, but truth is important. I've been Pentax user since K10D in 2007, and have just upgraded to K-3II, via K-7 in 2010 and K-5 in 2012 (a silver one with the tiniest 40mm lens).

In 2011 I got my first Fuji, X-100, and fell in love. X-Pro1 was a blast, and then X-T1 and X100T. I got almost all Fuji lenses in existence.

They are metal, have aperture rings, very small, and very fast. You get 35mm, 23mm, 16mm, all at f/1.4, 56mm at f/1.2, 90mm and 18mm both at f/2.0 and so on.

I had the FA 31mm and FA 77mm at respectable f/1.8.

Now, as I'm awaiting the FF and upgraded to K-3II meanwhile, I needed to catch up in the 14/16mm and 23mm departments. All I see is a 15mm and 21mm at ridiculously slow apertures. With the B&H deals they are a bit cheaper than Fuji counterparts, but much, much slower. Only 100mm at f/2.8 looks good in those deals, and perhaps 20-40mm at 2.8-4.0.

For those of you owning Fuji systems as well as Pentax, how can you justify Pentax investment?

Cheers,
A+

P.S. Obviously I'm a Pentaxian so the title is a bit overgeneralized and exaggerated for polemic purposes.

Fujifilm's zoom lens XF 16-55mm F2.8 R is larger that Pentax's DA* 16-50mm f/2.8

[Oldbayrunner]

It's easy to see I've not said anything like that, especially given I've just made an investment in Pentax. The original post says,

For those of you owning Fuji systems as well as Pentax, how can you justify Pentax investment?

So the question was what are the situations where you'd invest in one vs the other. My own conclusion is, when the criteria is compact, in wide for Fuji and in tele for Pentax. It's easy to imagine situations where I have both around and properly equipped.

A+

"Last edited by braver; 1 Day Ago at 08:13 PM."

Gee I wish I would have kept my initial answer to the original post I quoted as this wasn't what, where or how you originally posted this. You deleted the post this was in and included this sentence in another place.

[normhead]

For those of you owning Fuji systems as well as Pentax, how can you justify Pentax investment?

I know I don't own both Fuji and Pentax gear, so, you've already in your title indicated you have no interest in talking to me... my opinion is valueless here...
I just can't help sniping at such a myopically framed title.

But since this is a Pentax forum, maybe a more appropriate question would have been... "as a Pentax user, what do you see as the limitations of the Fuji system?". I'm sure we could have helped you out.

[Winder]

For those of you owning Fuji systems as well as Pentax, how can you justify Pentax investment?

I have not bought any Pentax gear since the K-3. The money I had saved for the FF has mostly gone towards the Sony FE system. I will wait to see how good the K-1 is and decide what to do with my FF Pentax glass.

[audiobomber]

From anything I've seen, the DA*55mm f1.4 is superior in every way to the Fuji 56mm f1.2. It is missing that last half-stop, which I will gladly trade for SR. Normal focal lengths are well covered by Pentax. It is however inexcusable that there's not a current K-mount fast 24mm. That should be a standard lens.

Super fast and super wide are not a big draw for me. I have the DA 15mm f4, 10-17 FE and a Touit 12mm f2.8 for my a6000, so I'm covered for my needs. The OP notably ignores the DA 14mm f2.8.

I bought a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 for $419, which has IQ to match any standard zoom and is not available for the Fuji system.

[Winder]

From anything I've seen, the DA*55mm f1.4 is superior in every way to the Fuji 56mm f1.2.

I have used both. I went through 2 DA* 55mm lenses before going with the older Sigma 50mm F/1.4. The Fuji 56mm is better than either the Sigma 50mm or the DA* 55mm.

The DA 14mm is not that good of a lens or there are some QC issues. I've tried several copies on my K-3 looking for one. Maybe they were all bad copies. I have pre-ordered the Loxia 21mm for my A7II and that will give me the wide angle I'm looking for.... I hope.

[Kenntak]

The Fuji 56mm is better than either the Sigma 50mm or the DA* 55mm.

How is it better? You don't support your statement.

[braver]

OldBayRunner:

I edit for clarity, not the key points. And I bet you a $100 -- let's ask Adam to check the edits -- the meaning stayed the same. Which most folks on this thread got correctly, which is attested to by the meaningful replies.


normhead:

I'm actually open to and welcome all input, and posted it here and not on Fuji forum because I'm currently back in the Pentax mode, with the K-3II. I would love to hear ideas on comparing both, or mirror vs mirrorless relevant to Pentax, from all folks!

Fujifilm's zoom lens XF 16-55mm F2.8 R is larger that Pentax's DA* 16-50mm f/2.8

I actually got the Pentax one and don't want to get the Fuji one for the size reason. On Pentax with a grip it is much easier to handle.

Well, the title is "Fuji APS-C lenses are smaller, faster, and cheaper than Pentax ones." I think a lot of folks read it as a slur on Pentax glass. I think we can agree that Fuji lenses are faster than Pentax lenses, but it is hard to figure out the smaller thing, since lens builds, apertures and focal lengths are often quite different between the lens line ups. The whole "cheaper" issue is beyond me. Most of their lenses seem to be priced higher than equivalent Pentax ones, although I am sure there are specific lenses like the FA 31 that are priced higher than equivalent Fuji lenses.

Rondec -- first of all, thank you for your very useful contributions and advice. I've learned new things and that's the main idea of using a forum! I must admit I've been hasty with cheaper, mostly due to immediately preceding purchase of the 24-70. Probably should take "cheaper" back. Generally you can obtain all Fuji lenses under $1K, except the 50-140. With FF, most lenses will probably be more expensive. However, after that I've explored the B&H deals and found that indeed most small wide lenses can be obtained under $400-500, which is cheaper than Fuji, They will be generally slow though.

A+

[clackers]

Braver, you're saying you're after a nuanced discussion but the thread title and opening post were real tabloid quality.

Poor choices, IMHO.

Note that the Fuji raw files like the m43 system contain a lot of correction data ... clearly there's not enough glass in a lot of those lenses and it can be up to software or the camera to jack up exposure in the corners to cater for vignetting, stretch the image out to correct for distortion, and even apply sharpening to compensate for the stretching.

You can try to maintain that's what a modern mirrorless system has to do if the wide angle lenses lack a retrofocal group because the flange distance is too short, but it's robbed you of latitude in the RAW files in PP.

[braver]

Clackers: well, catchy titles help getting attention.... Corrections -- very interesting! There're corrections indeed conveyed to Lightroom directly, and I'm seeing quite different image character. Wonder if that's due to the flange distance difference.

A+

[clackers]

Clackers: well, catchy titles help getting attention....

I don't think their incendiary tone did you any favours with making friends, IMHO.

People will remember you did that to them in the past - it's not a reputation to seek.

Corrections -- very interesting! There're corrections indeed conveyed to Lightroom directly, and I'm seeing quite different image character. Wonder if that's due to the flange distance difference.

A+

Wide angles are problematic for mirrorless cameras.

The rear element is so close to the sensor that the angles are oblique at the corners and edges.

You can try to engineer your way out of the problem by:

1. Making lenses as big as DSLR ones (awkward if your marketing department have claimed mirrorless means smaller)

2. Put a layer of microlenses on the sensor stack (makes it thicker, can now smear or discolor corners or introduce artifacts)

3. The poor man's way - RAW file corrections stored as data for a converter to use.

Telephotos can be a problem, too. A mirrorless body is relatively thin, but the most uncorrected 300mm lens would have a 300mm path length from the front element to the sensor.

Btw, I own three MILCs, including FF.

[Parallax]

The OP stated in his opening post that he worded things the way he did "for polemic purposes." Miriam Webster defines polemic as

a strong written or spoken attack against someone else's opinions, beliefs, practices, etc.

Not surprisingly, most people don't like their beliefs and opinions being attacked and some reacted accordingly.
Honestly, I don't know whether the OP was trolling or this thread was an ill framed attempt at legitimate discussion but, regardless, it's gone as far as it needs to.