|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 272
|
![]()
i have the 50-200 and have been generally satisfied although I haven't had a chance to really put it through its paces.
I have used the 18-55 a lot. In many situatuions, I have been very pleased. Others not so much, but it's better than all the other kit lenses. And much better quality than the nikon superzoom kit (18-135?) but that's a given because of the smaller zoom range. The 200$ Pentax 50mm/1.4 completely outclasses every competing 50mm. The 250$ Pentax Limited 40mm is referred to as "brutally sharp" and is a pancake lens..... AFAIK no other manufacturer offers anything like it at that price. The other limited lenses, $600 and up generally stand alone in terms of build and image quality. If you go to previous generations (manual focus), you generally can't go wrong. Some of the best glass out there and it works with the latest greatest DSLRs. And they can be had for pennies on the dollar. Pentax has got plenty of stinkers too. Some older zooms (100-300 for example) have been fairly awful, but then, you can find them for under a hundred bucks. Next generation of pentax lenses (DA*) appears to be very good from some of the pics posted, but starting at 800 bucks isn't what I'd call cheap. Anyway, long story short, you can get a lot for your money and can easily use 50 year old lenses you can buy for chump change, something no other manufacturer can claim. For example, I bought a soviet "Industar" 50mm/f3.5 lens. It is TINY. and the image quality is excellent. It cost me 10 bucks. But then, manual focus kinda stinks when you've used autofocus before. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
|
![]()
There is no sensible answer to this.
All manufacturers make better and worse lenses. Price is a reasonable approximation of how good they are, taking all characteristics into account. P.S. I get so utterly bored with the Pentax marketing ploy (that all the Pentax owners seem to repeat ad-nauseum) that you can use any of the lenses they have ever made - now upwards of 80 million. Well guess what? Canon have made over 100 million lenses since they changed to the EF autofocus mount in 1987, you can use any of those on current EOS bodies and ALL of them are autofocus. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 268
|
![]()
Roughly how long have Pentax and Canon eachbeen making lenses that are designed for digital SLR sensors?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
|
![]()
I think you're missing the point. Your question follows from the premiss that it is possible to say one brand is better than another. That premiss is flawed and your question is therefore meaningless.
You simply cannot say that one BRAND is better than the other. Both manufacturers make some fantastic lenses and some stinkers. How much money you are willing to pay is far more relevant than which brand you choose. If you have a specific focal length in mind you may be able to make some meaningful comparisons. You should also keep in mind that Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all make some fine lenses too (as well as some rubbish) and they make them in Nikon, Canon and Pentax mounts. For a given set of requirements; price, focal length, speed, etc. It may be possible to say that Pentax lens X is better than Canon lens Y, but Sigma may have a lens Z that is better than both. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 268
|
![]()
peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]()
Contriver wrote:
Quote:
By the way - I'm not bashing the made-for-digital lenses at all. The concept makes great sense - why put more glass in there then you actually need. I'm just saying I think you're worrying over nothing. Heck, all those great Pentax lenses you can get cheaply are full frame. The question you SHOULD be asking is: for your next lens or lenses, what are the requirements. Then see whether or not you can get the lenses in Pentax. For example, say you love shooting wildlife. OK, reach is a huge issue there - you need at least 300mm, preferably 400mm or even longer. Focus speed is also critical. So, you would start looking at specific lenses that were 300mm or 400mm and have a good reputation for fast focusing (and don't let people mislead you - focus speed is also an attribute of the lens not just the camera). Or let's say you like shallow-DOF portrait work. Well, max aperture is key there. As is the BOKEH the lens produces - the quality of the background blur. Guess what? You won't see that plotted on an MTF chart. But it makes a big difference in REAL WORLD performance. So, I'd suggest figuring out what you need out of your future lenses in a more specific nature - then look for specific lenses that fit your needs. Then see if Pentax has them available (either thru their own lenses or third party). If so, then don't sweat what they don't have that you don't need. And don't be mislead into thinking that just because it's made for full frame it's inferior. In real world performance, MTF charts are only part of the equation. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
|
![]()
TCav wrote:
Quote:
And like you said plenty of third party stuff (like Sigma/Tamron) that is quite decent, and good value stuff to if not an anal perfectionist (or pro that can cost it off), that doesn't think twice about spending 3x camera cost on one lens. I have a P K10D and a couple of current AF zooms but also a number of old A series primes now. (meaning AE but manual focus) and that's not a biggie when you are talking $20 for a fast 2.0 normal- standard wide (50-28mm) prime lens.. ZOOM and MF can be messy/tricky, but a just MF prime is easy.... and sharper and faster |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
|
![]()
peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
And by the way AF is often as much a hiderence as it is a help, so personally especially with a prime lens MF is no big issue.... really preferable in a DOF complex shot. (Where AF often irritatingly screws up) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 268
|
![]()
JohnG wrote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 268
|
![]()
Hayward wrote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|