Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 23, 2007, 11:32 AM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 54
Default

I agree with what you say TCav but the 3rd-parties are not good enough to supply for the "missing" lenses in the Sony/Pentax/Oly systems?

Honestly I cannot convince myself to buy a non-stabilized DSLR when I have it in my FZ8. I sure don't wan't to be disapointed by finding that I get a better shot on a compact costing a third of the price...
Delius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2007, 3:52 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Delius wrote:
Quote:
I agree with what you say TCav but the 3rd-parties are not good enough to supply for the "missing" lenses in the Sony/Pentax/Oly systems?
As far as fast long lenses goes, Sigma has the 150mm f/2.8 for the Olympus and the 70-200mm f/2.8 and 100-300mm f/4 for the Sony and Pentax (each costing close to $1,000). Anything longer doesn't exist for the Pentax, and costs an arm and a leg for the Sony and Olympus.

Edit: I did find some long fast lenses for the Pentax mount, but they also cost an arm and a leg. Canon and Nikon still have a better selection, and some cost less.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2007, 6:57 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10
Default

Thanks for your great input! But now it seems like I should just wait and save a little more money for the Nikon D80 instead. OH BROTHER! :?
mikul93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2007, 8:56 PM   #14
Member
 
amicah22's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 76
Default

True when it comes to long pentax branded lenses (they are made per order by pentaxJapan at incrediblecosts - but not everin stock anywhere) but several 3rd party lenses are avaible for the pentax mount. Just go to the pentax forums and do a search for"bigma" sigma's 50-500mm monster.TCav wrote:
Quote:
Delius wrote:
Quote:
I agree with what you say TCav but the 3rd-parties are not good enough to supply for the "missing" lenses in the Sony/Pentax/Oly systems?
As far as fast long lenses goes, Sigma has the 150mm f/2.8 for the Olympus and the 70-200mm f/2.8 and 100-300mm f/4 for the Sony and Pentax (each costing close to $1,000). Anything longer doesn't exist for the Pentax, and costs an arm and a leg for the Sony and Olympus.
amicah22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2007, 8:59 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

mikul93 wrote:
Quote:
Thanks for your great input! But now it seems like I should just wait and save a little more money for the Nikon D80 instead. OH BROTHER! :?
Good choice! And come back and post something!
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2007, 9:19 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

amicah22 wrote:
Quote:
True when it comes to long pentax branded lenses (they are made per order by pentaxJapan at incrediblecosts - but not everin stock anywhere) but several 3rd party lenses are avaible for the pentax mount. Just go to the pentax forums and do a search for"bigma" sigma's 50-500mm monster.TCav wrote:
Quote:
Delius wrote:
Quote:
I agree with what you say TCav but the 3rd-parties are not good enough to supply for the "missing" lenses in the Sony/Pentax/Oly systems?
As far as fast long lenses goes, Sigma has the 150mm f/2.8 for the Olympus and the 70-200mm f/2.8 and 100-300mm f/4 for the Sony and Pentax (each costing close to $1,000). Anything longer doesn't exist for the Pentax, and costs an arm and a leg for the Sony and Olympus.
Yes, but I was talking about fast long lenses. Calling the 50-500 f/4.0-6.3 'fast' is a bit of a stretch. And, by all accounts I can find, when compared to other offerings for other mounts, it isn't a great lens to start with (though I would agree to call it 'above average'.)

Edit: I did find some long fast lenses for the Pentax mount, but they also cost an arm and a leg. Canon and Nikon still have a better selection, and some cost less.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2007, 11:05 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

Fast long lenses sure come at a price. I have a 300 f4 prime and it is as big and heavy a lens as I'm likely to carry. I was looking at a picture of someone who got a Tamron 300mm 2.8, and it's a monster! All that fast glass comes at a big price - not only in money but in weight and size, too. They sure sound lovely but there's no way I'm going to use one.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2007, 7:23 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

mtngal wrote:
Quote:
Fast long lenses sure come at a price. I have a 300 f4 prime and it is as big and heavy a lens as I'm likely to carry. I was looking at a picture of someone who got a Tamron 300mm 2.8, and it's a monster! All that fast glass comes at a big price - not only in money but in weight and size, too. They sure sound lovely but there's no way I'm going to use one.
Agreed. I was just using fast long lenses as an example of why aperson might want to choose one camera maker over another. I could just as easily have used fast short lenses as a reason toselect aPentax. My point is that, when you select a dSLR based solely on the camera body, you might find yourself wishing you'd made another choice when it comes time to select lenses for what you want to do.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2007, 9:12 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

I certainly don't disagree with that at all, TCav!

Sometimes I think we get focused on specs and theory so much on photo boards that we forget the otherside of the compromise. For instance, all this talk about long fast lenses sure gave me a good case of lens-envy at one point. Then I saw a picture of that Tamron and realized that sometimes I miss themost importantpoint - what's practical. I was just pointing out why not everyone is chomping at the bit to buy a fast long telephoto lens.

And that just re-enforces your point that someone needs to look lenses and a camera system, which really means they look at the whole picture of what they want to do with photography. Not just look at specs on paper, not just look at pictures that pros take with cameras and lenses that cost thousands and weigh 40 pounds (I think that's what I read Ansel Adams carried on a climb in Yosemite that got him one of his most memorable photos).
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2007, 9:22 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

mtngal wrote:
Quote:
... I was just pointing out why not everyone is chomping at the bit to buy a fast long telephoto lens.
Yeah, but I sure wouldn't mind having a few more short fast lenses. I am NOT, however, going to spend $1,350 for a 35mm f/1.4 for my KM5D. I guess I'll just have to get along with my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. (What a jewel!)
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:15 PM.