|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-12-2017, 01:05 PM
|
| |
Come on, you know you'd miss it. :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-12-2017, 10:33 AM
|
| |
Good, let's pack it in for the day.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-12-2017, 08:59 AM
|
| |
That's why I looked at APS-c tests for both lenses.
The unrestricted criticism of everything Pentax by every second poster is simply unacceptable;e. Most seem to be so biased for Caninkon superiority they don't recognize a great lens when they see one. They just criticize it of it's undeniable and obvious weaknesses, instead of praising it for it's also undeniable strengths. The level of unrestricted unwarranted negativity on the forum is off the charts and getting worse by the day. The above being a case in point.
Just say something good about a Pentax lens and you are subject to pages of responses, none of which make the slightest bit of sense, from a rational perspective. Simply stated, not every lens has to be fast focussing, that is not the main criteria of a good lens. The main criteria of a good lens is the optics. The rest of it is debatable. Some people use fast AF, some don't' It's not a universal requirement. Being able to produce the best picture in appropriate circumstances is.
The 60-250 has the optics. The Canon lenses mentioned don't. Simple as that.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-12-2017, 08:50 AM
|
| |
Dan, you don't get it. No one cares you aren't everyone. You can say that, and I still like my 60-250
Because
1. It has a baffle for APS-c, but all of us who have been around the forum for a while know it was designed as a full frame lens, the patent was posted. So that's why people immediately figured out the baffle. IN a way that's better. I can keep my 60-250 as a dedicated APS-c lens or use it as and FF lens that vignettes every now and then, or remove the baffle and have a fully functional FF lens.
2. I shoot landscape and occasionally wildlife. Having 60mm and 200-250 makes more sense to me than fast AF and a considerable percentage of my lenses. My solution to the focus breathing is adding a 1.4 TC or 1.7x for close subjects.
3. The number of times I actually need fast focus is limited to birds, and I don't use if much for birds.
You still don't get it do you? Examine the lens, from your criteria, in no way effects my examination of the lens from my criteria. Are you really so myopic you don't understand that judging a lens as better, for there to be agreement there has to be agreement on what the lens should be?
Look at the edge to edge sharpness of this lens
Can you really not understand that for a landscape shooter with occasional wildlife opportunities, this is almost the perfect lens? Sharp edge to edge for landscape, acceptable reach for wildlife, wildlife is rarely close enough for focus breathing to be an issue. Excellent sharpness centre and edge across it's whole range. It's simply a marvellous piece of engineering.
Honestly, your inability to understand how perfect this lens is for a lot of shooters is truly puzzling. I suspect that your criticism of the lens is based on the fact that Canon makes nothing like it so you never figured out it's strengths and weaknesses. You just dwell on it's weaknesses. You definitely do nothing like that for Canon gear, where it's all "Canon is so great" .
You respond with lenses that are the quality of my F 70-210 which I got for $30. (I'll sell it to you for $50, it's my fastest focussing Pentax lens, you might like it and rate it really highly if that's the only criteria.)
Really, it's disappointing, and sad.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-12-2017, 07:24 AM
|
| |
OK dan, and this is what butting in to someone else's conversation does for you.
For me it is, and for a lot of other people it is. I was responding to this....
I was not trying to make a case for the pentax being universally better, I was making a case against pentax lenses being universally inferior.
No matter how you twist it, to my mind, my point stands. If you have a different opinion that's fine, I have no issue with that. It's simply unfortunate that you can't seem to comprehend, that in this case, I can say Pentax lenses are better for me, you can say Canon lenses are better for you, and you don't seem to comprehend, we can both be right. The power in your argument is not in trying to negate what I'm saying, but in the whatever merit there may be in those arguments. It doesn't matter what you say, for me the 60-250 is the better lens, and it makes no difference to me what you think. People who work like I do should listen to me. People who work like you do should listen to you. There doesn't have to be a war every time something like this comes up. And you certainly don't have to argue with everything I post from your perspective. Say what you have to say, I'll say what I have to say, people can make up their own mind.
I'd hope in the future you'd read through the thread enough to actually understand what the conversation is about before you type endless paragraphs of unrelated material.
Now if you wish to try and make the point that every Canon lens is better than every Pentax lens, as implied by the post to which i was responding, give it a go. Anything less, and you're arguing with yourself, not me.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-12-2017, 06:40 AM
|
| |
The edges on the CANON EF 70-300MM F4-5.6 L IS USM LENS are pretty much abysmal compared to the DA*60-250. It's not a quality lens. Should I mention the Pentax 55-300 a similar lens for $549 CAD? Going to a 70-300 type lens, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. How low can we go here? I'll sell you my Sigma 70-300 in Pentax mount for $50 CAD. Beat that!
No one who has used a 70-300 type lens and a 60-250 is going to suggest this comparison. One is well below average, the 60-250 is stellar.
My pont that Canon lenses are not categorically and universally better stands. You have to go lens by lens, and it depends on what you're looking for. You may find Pentax lenses inferior, you may find Canon lenses inferior, And given the overall better value in Pentax bodies, unless you are shooting sports (as in professional athletes, or birds in flight) you get much better value from Pentax. Better IQ for less money.
One thing is for certain, Modern Pentax lenses are useless if you don't have modern Pentax bodies. Don't let that colour your thinking.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-12-2017, 06:29 AM
|
| |
Most of my landscapes are shot hand held. In good light there's no need with the Pentax SR. The only time I use a tripod for landscapes is sunsets after the sun has actually set, when the sun is above the horizon, I still work with SR, not a a tripod, so again, I'm scratching my head.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-12-2017, 05:50 AM
|
| |
Of course the 60-250 is heavier and longer, it's 250mm instead of 200mm (duh).
There are many FF lenses some Canons as well that vignette as much as the 60-250. I use mine on my K-1 without modification.
CANON EF 70-200 F4 L IS ZOOM LENS
(4.2) 4.2
$1,479.99 CAD
Search: CANON 70-200MM F4L IS - Henry's best camera store in Canada : Origin
Pentax 60-250
PENTAX DA* 60-250MM F4 SDM LENS
(5.0) 5.0
$1,399.99 CAD
Search: PENTAX 250 - Henry's best camera store in Canada : Origin
Wrong or misleading on all counts. Once again, your anti-Pentax bias is showing. Although, for you, the slower AF thing is the relevant point. I use the 60-250 a lot as a landscape lens, not so much for wildlife, so we are bound to have different opinions of the lens.
You should stick to discussing Canon gear, where you are usually quite good.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-11-2017, 05:34 PM
|
| |
A K-3ii is roughly the same as a 7DmkII. The K-3 has more MP in the sensor, a 20% slower FPS rate and there are many other differences, where one exceeds the other in this or that spec. The Canon probably has better AF for moving objects.
However a K-3ii is about $600 cheaper. You can almost buy a K-1 for the cost of a 7D MKii
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-11-2017, 09:10 AM
|
| |
That's an interesting thought....I recently looked at Canon.
go to this page and give the charts for the Canon EF 70-200 f4 and then the Pentax 60-250 ƒ4.
How is the Canon lens better? The Pentax has more range, looks just as good on it's charts.
Looking at the charts...
The DA* is about the same as the Canon it's graph looks about the same, ibut the Canon lacks the nice tight construction that SR brings, and is WR. In this case the Pentax is a much better value than the Canon for about the same image quality. Unless you have some examples showing what you are tailing about, I'm just going to dismiss this point outright. Being a 60-250 owner, Pentax has the best lens for less money. I find it kind of outrageous that you'd even say such a thing. Maybe you should in the future specify which lenses you are talking about, because if I can look at one pair of lenses and show you to be wrong (one I actually own), I'm guessing a lot of other folks can too.
To me, Canon would be an inferior lens at a higher price for less capability. How does that make Pentax inferior? Let's not get stupid here.
And it's not just the 60-250, Pentax kits , 18-55 and many others, the 18-135s, the 28-105, the 55-300 have been judged superior to their Canikon counterparts.
I can run with a whole lens kit superior or equal in every case with what Canon has to offer at a similar price. Maybe you should qualify your post by stating that for some users Canons are equal or better. For a K-1 user with a 28-105, a 60-250, a DA*200 and 100 macro and the other lenses I own. Canon has absolutely nothing to offer for anywhere near the same money. By that I mean, they don't have as good quality or IQ at the same price and what they do have costs a lot more if you want to exceed what Pentax offers, when that's even possible.
|
