[reh321]

Hi!

Similar to my other thread: How Nikon line up compares to pentax? - PentaxForums.com I am courious how canon lens lineup compares to Pentax (including thirdparty).
I have the FA* 24, FA 31, FA 43, DA* 55, FA 77, DFA 100 macro, DA*200 officially full frame compatible lenses.
-The similar priced lenses has a similar IQ?
-What are the lenses which has a similar IQ?
-Is there any small lenses like the FA limiteds?

I don't want to change system, but I would like to know a little more about the other systems. I would like to hear opinions from (ex)pentax users.

This question seems straight-forward, but I believe it is based in a misunderstanding. Latest systems from Canon, Nikon and Pentax are very similar, but Canon got there in a completely different way. Thirty years ago, Canon went AF by introducing their EF-mount with USM lenses; people who wanted to keep a foot in the old system left Canon, but within a few years Canon had gained many many more users {including me}. By contrast, Pentax and Nikon made a small change back then - each introduced screw-drive based AF, and then slowly moved to the place Canon had jumped to; thus, their users could keep one foot in the familial old way of doing things while slowly becoming familiar with new ideas one at a time.

The result is that Nikon and Pentax systems are conceptually similar, and you can compare details; Canon's system is conceptually different, and there is no easy way to compare. I don't have any lens catalog memorized. but I believe Canon has many fewer prime lenses than Pentax does. On the other hand, I don't hear Canon users complain about "gaps" in their lens lineup as I do from Pentax users

[08amczb]

Thanks Dan, its informative!

The Sigma 24 has a similar price to the FA*24, the Tamron 35 has a similar price to FA31, the tamron 45 has a similar price to DA*55, and no need for an additional 50mm, the Sigma 85 has a similar price to the FA77, the 100 macro is more expensive and the 200 has a similar price. So the whole set has a similar price with similar or better image quality and much bigger size, if I am correct.
The original canon lenses are very expensive, in general the thirparty lenses are in line with the pentax lenses.

[Dan Rentea]

So the whole set has a similar price with similar or better image quality and much bigger size, if I am correct.

Depends on who you ask. I'm not much of a fan when comes to old lenses from film era, regardless the system. You may get some interesting results with them, but I would not enjoy shooting only with old lenses. The ones used to shoot film are more tempted to use old lenses. I didn't try to include in the above list some old Canon lenses that are not in production anymore. The L lenses I mentioned have some "old brothers" also. 35mm f1.4L II for example it's the new model, but you can find on the market the first version on the lens which is close in terms of price to FA lenses.

The original canon lenses are very expensive, in general the thirparty lenses are in line with the pentax lenses.

The new Pentax lenses are closed to Canon L lenses in terms of price. Performance cost money.

Third party lenses these days are quite impressive in terms of performance, if you are lucky to find a good copy. I like where Tamron is going more than I like what Sigma does with the Art line. Quality control seems better for Tamron lenses. Sigma has an edge in terms of performance while Tamron has better build quality and better overall construction with some water protection elements.

[KiloHotelphoto]

Canon's system is conceptually different, and there is no easy way to compare. I don't have any lens catalog memorized. but I believe Canon has many fewer prime lenses than Pentax does. On the other hand, I don't hear Canon users complain about "gaps" in their lens lineup as I do from Pentax users

Just doing a quick search on B&H Canon has 68 full frame lenses and 18 APSC, 44 zoom and 41 primes. Pentax has 15 Full frame 34 apsc with 21 zoom and 28 primes. Total lenses in EF mount including third party is 279 and Pentax K mount including third party is 119.

I added the Canon system last year to my collection with the plan on keeping my K1 and 300mm and below lenses and just having the big lenses with Canon.

At the time I had a K1 and K3 with the DA560, DA*300, DFA 100 macro and da 50 and 35. I sold off the K3 and da560 and picked up a 5dsr and 600mm F4 IS II to replace them. Then I was looking for a 70-200 2.8 and was looking at both Pentax and Canon and I just couldn't find any good reviews on the Pentax anywhere except on this forum but could find tons of reviews on the Canon 70-200 IS II. So I decided to sell the rest of the Pentax and picked up the Canon 70-200 and a 7D2 body. I have since added a 16-34 F4 L IS to the collection and have the 400 2.8 budgeted for 2019.

Of all the Pentax lenses I had the DA* 300 was by far the best especially on the K1, wish I could've kept that combo. I think that lens was almost as good as the Canon 70-200, and I've been really impressed with the Canon. The da560 you can't compare with the Canon 600 F4 IS II. I know people will say well the canon cost a lot more and it does, but when the 560 came out it was $8000 so it was a little closer in price and in no way was it worth $8000.

Canon does have a much larger selection and in a wide price range. They seem to offer lots of lenses in a variety of speeds, 16-35 F2.8 16-35 F4 and 70-200 2.8 and 70-200 F4 and so on and the used marketplace is much larger because of the number of Canon users compared to Pentax.

I wish I could've kept my K1 and DA*300 it was a great little carry around combo and the images were great but at the time it didn't make sense to keep two systems and until I fill out the Canon line up it's not in the budget.

[08amczb]

You are the second who says the DA*300 is so much good compared to other brands. I heard it's much better then Nikon 300 F4. (Not comparing to the Nikon 300 F2.8).

[catwalk]

I recently became a Pentaxian after deciding to re-invest in my photography hobby after many years (I was a poor student so couldn't afford new gear until now). My decision to choose Pentax came after spending almost a month of researching which brand/camera would be the best for me. I can't say too much about full frame options since I could not afford them anyway, but some of this probably applies to them as well. Here are my observations on Canon, I will post my observations on Nikon in your other thread when I get the chance.

In general Canon has a lot more focus on entry level photography and video than the other two brands. It is very easy to find a cheap kit with a body and 2-3 lenses plus a ton of accessories (you hardly see Pentax kits, few with Nikon). You can even find Canon kits at places like Costco.


When pricing things out, I found that the greater availability of Canon lenses made it more affordable than other brands for setting up a basic lens kit (wide zoom, standard zoom, and tele). Canon also tends to sell cameras, several years behind in terms of technology, at prices comparable to compacts (e.g. Rebel T6). It is much easier to find Canon lenses than Pentax lenses, especially if visiting local shops.


For the most part, Canon bodies have significantly more auto focus points than the similarly priced offerings of Nikon or Pentax. The video resolution, autofocus performance, and frame rate of Canon cameras really stands out compared to similarly priced options from Nikon or Pentax.

In terms of construction, Canon appears to use a lot more plastic than Nikon or Pentax.

For image quality, Canon does pretty well for high ISO in low-light, but most Canon bodies have a built in low-pass filter. The color accuracy of the sensors tends to be slightly better than Pentax, but this can be fixed in post for the most part. Canon tends to show more detail at high ISOs than Pentax, but Pentax has an advantage at lower ISOs in general.


Canon was quickly eliminated as a candidate for my photography habits, because I did not find any sub $1000 bodies that came without a low-pass filter. I do a lot of landscape photography so this was a deal breaker. I could care less about video, but Canon really has an edge here compared to other brands. My impression of all this is that Canon is mostly marketing to youths and casual photographers who are fine with kit lenses but want responsive autofocus and make videos. Their kits are the kind of thing you might put under the christmas tree for your teen or college student, and they tend to go on big sales during black friday/cyber monday. For a young youtuber or aspiring photographer Canon is probably the way to go. But for serious photographers Nikon and Pentax have better offerings in the sub $1000 range.

[Eagle94VT]

In addition to the good list of lenses above, I'd add the Canon 40mm/2.8 pancake. They also have a 24mm/2.8 pancake. I used the 40mm pancake for a while and it takes good pictures. It felt like there was nothing on the front end of my Canon EOS 1v! The "L" lenses are smooth but typically big and heavy. The non L quite plasticky. For my canon I use the 24-105/4 II and it looks and feels twice as big as my 28-105 DFA for my K1. I went with the Tamron 35 and I have had for years the 85/1.8 from Canon - not quite as solid a feel but takes good fotos. A bit sad selling my Canon 17-40 - it was smooth as well, but rarely saw use - I hope it found a good home. I've also parted with the big typical 24-70 and 70-200's. I tend to use general zooms and primes. I've never tried a Canon digital so I can't comment much there...

[Fenwoodian]

.
I've owned Canon full frame digital cameras. Canon lenses are overall better than Pentax lenses. I'm not saying that there are not any native K mount lenses better than it's Canon counterpart, but rather I'm commenting on each manufacturers modern lenses in total.

1. Canon has wonderful big tele lenses. Pentax's giant/fast tele offerings don't compare.
2. Some of their fast L glass produces some of the best bokeh I've seen when it's shot at wider apertures (sorry FA Limited owners).
3. Like someone else mentioned, one can purchase the latest Sigma and Zeiss lenses in the Canon mount - another big plus for Canon.
4. Pentax does not offer a modern, tilt shift lens. Canon offers 6 or 8 highly regarded ones.
5. etc. etc. etc.

However, having said all of that, there's no way that I'd trade my Pentax K-1 camera for a Canon 5D Mark IV camera. For what I shoot, the K-1 is much better than the latest Canon full frame flagship. For me, the terrific Pentax K-1 camera trumps the better Canon lenses.

P.S. If Pentax keeps releasing new/fast/excellent DFA lenses (like the just released DFA 50/1.4), someday I may have to re-rate Pentax glass overall better than Canon lenses. But for now, Canon's modern glass (including their third party lenses) are overall better than Pentax.

[clackers]

I own the Canon FD 300mm f2.8 L, and in EF mount the 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, the Tokina 17-35mm f4 and the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. I have shot plenty of others on other people's cameras.

I would say their L series glass is very, very good (such as the 70-200), the other stuff nothing special. The dedicated APS-C lineup is in fact very weak compared to Pentax and Fuji, and there is no medium format lens at all.

Picture below is the 28mm on my Sony A7:

[08amczb]

Thanks for the opinions!
I've created a thread for sony too: How Sony lineup compares to Pentax? - PentaxForums.com

[sculptor666]

canon makes everything, and every 3rd party manufacturer makes things for canon... this has been true for a long time. it can make your life easier if your photography needs something non-typical. also, they have a professional network. need to borrow a lens from the company? there's a system in place for that.

the astronomical price for some of their cameras vs pentax is crazy though... and no image quality advantage.