Jumping ship

[jgredline]

<p>As some of you know, I was one of those crazy dudes that shelled out $4200.00 for the Sigma 500F/4.5 and the 1.4 matching TC. I have used it only handful of times in the past two years and have been trying to sell it now for the past few months. While many want it, few can justify that kind of expense.. My main reason for using it so little is the weight. I suppose if I where still 25 years old or so, I could schlep it around. It is a trully amazing lens, but very impracticable unless you have some big guns. The gimbal tripod that was required is another small fortune...So my go too long lens set up is my 100-300F/4.0 sigma and matching TC's...So the long lens is not an issue for Pentax....BUT this brings up another point. In order to use those Long lenses, you need to be able to shoot at ISO's up around the 1600 Range and usually this is not a problem for the K20D, but I would never even think about ISO 1600 with the K-7....''IMO''....</p>

<p>Now, I have been looking at Long glass for my Nikons and I am trying to decide if I want to sell Daniel or Claire. ;-) </p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Javier,</p>

<p>I have to disagree with only 1 thing. The idea you 'need' ISO 1600 to shoot long lenses is false. No doubt it can be helpful, but it isn't necessary.</p>

<p>Remember, back in the days of film, people did create some beautiful wildlife shots and even landscapes with very long lenses, and they were mostly using 50-200ISO film. Sure they might be pushing it a few stops, but rarely did they push to 1600 or more.</p>

<p>So in that respect I have to disagree. As the digital age has evolved, we have become jaded to the need for high ISO. That isn't to say the fact that high ISO has become a defacto standard should be ignored. if everyone else has it and you don't, you are at a disadvantage.</p>

<p>I think with the digital revolution people expect both longer and wider lenses. my guess is most people back in the days of film were very happy with a lens that hit 210-300mm, and a lens that hit 20-24mm on the wide end. It seems with the digital era underway, people expect lenses closer to 15mm (in 35mm terms), and as long as 500-600mm in (in 35mm terms). All of this could be the result of the super zoom digital compacts that many people grew up on. Afterall, back in the days of film, most point and shoots had modest zoom ratios. since most people get a start on something besides an SLR, this would make sense to some degree.</p>

 

[jgredline]

<p>Justin, It is fine to agree to disagree. Having said that, in my limited birding experience and shooting at the horse track, I have found that the min shutter I need to freeze the motion is 1/1000 and usually even higher than that. I have tried it with shake reduction on and off and the results are the same. Infact, I am not sure that the shake reduction even works at those shutter speeds. For sure the shake reduction works wonders at slow shutter speeds.</p>

<p>As far as film goes, I think that film is much more forgiving than digital. Now in saying that, I have not used a lens longer than 200MM on film, so I don't really know. </p>

[ian s. forsyth]

<p >I think we are living in the golden age when it comes to photography, we have companies offering equipment and value that has not been seen for some time. Take pentax K7 we have a semi pro cropped sensor camera with robust amount of personal control in a package that really is a disposable cost when compared to high end cameras, also take a look at the k20d now $900 can. I damaged my first k10d which was a right off, it hurt but if it would have been a flagship canon, It would have ended my picture taking for sometime. I do not see any real advantage from one system to an other when it comes to cropped sensors most are on equal ground you really have to dig hard to find any weakness in image quality from all the major brands, I think what sets cameras apart is the personal controls and weather seals that body has and which sets pentax ahead of the game. As far as pentax lacking in long glass yes they have drop the ball but third party companies have picked up this slack and have come along way when it comes to quality of their products. My favorite big prime is the sigma 300 2.8 DG with the crop factor its more like a 500mm I don’t know how many ever try packing a prime 500 with body around you do not get very far. I have fallen in love with the 300mm fatma and using a 1.4 conv and 2 conv I can just about shoot anything anywhere(wildlife). With the combined cost of under $6000 including body its just about disposable (with a few tears). For the cost I have no hesitation to take the rig out into the outback with mud, sand, snow, cold and rain. I have seen many leave equipment behind because of he fear of damage, I have to tell you, the image quality of a photo taken with flagship canikon camera from inside the backpack left at home is horrid. A quick list of my body count </p>

<p >Ist ds many times repairing the shell with JB wield, finally killed in action winter 2006</p>

<p >Fall 2007 first k10d joined Jack & Jill at the bottom of the hill</p>

<p >Fall 2008 second K10d did not like the tailgate of the pickup truck</p>

<p >Winter 2009 K20d , Found out that the 20d is allergic to plastic clips on cheap straps in cold weather ( broke the strap) landed on pavement camera survived but the 28mm 2.8 did not make it (heart broken). Add note on the fatma 300 its FF compatible so it works perfect on my FF pentax body also the boken of the lens is unmatched in the prime 300 category </p>

<p > </p>

<p >One of my recent photos taken the K7 with the fatma 2 conv <br>

Special notes: tripod, mirror lockup and bean bag @ F 4.5 1/13sec iso200 this was a very low light photo ½ hour before sunrise with overcast supplying an almost shadow less lighting No PS just processed in camera.</p><div></div>

[ian s. forsyth]

<p>crop</p><div></div>

[ian s. forsyth]

<p>I forgot to mention the best big prime glass and cheapest is made by wolverine and they are a damn good boot, so get out and start walking.</p>

[ian s. forsyth]

<p> My Perfect system for bird brains</p><div></div>

[MattB.Net]

<p>Nice, both the eagle and the bluebird! I have tried to get a decent shot on one of those bluebirds for years but they are so skittish that I can never get ready and/or close enough before they split.<br>

So what TC's do you guys like? Are there any that clearly stand above or below the rest? Taking some moon photos the other night I decided I still want a little more reach with my 55-300.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Matt,<br>

This newer <a href="../pentax-camera-forum/00VdeI">thread </a> covers TCs. I have found that TCs work significantly better with prime lenses rather than zooms. There's little magic here: the better the quality of the prime lens, the better the performance of the TC.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Michael is absolutely right about this, Matt</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's little magic here: the better the quality of the prime lens, the better the performance of the TC.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and the stronger the magnification the more critical the quality of the lens becomes. I have seen impressive results from the 55-300 & the Tamron 1.4x TC but I'd be wary of pushing beyond that. Let me pass on the mantra I'm learning: "Get close."</p>

<p>I just caught up on the extended discussion. I'll just say that Marc Languille and others have convinced me that it's possible to do high quality wildlife photography with existing Pentax gear: whether<em><strong> I</strong> </em> can do it remains to be seen but I'm having fun trying. </p>

<p>It would be cool if (after they resolve the SDM issues) Pentax brought out a top notch fast weather-sealed 500mm & appropriate TC's. It may well be too late as far as I'm concerned but having that option out there could be important in a marketing sense. At this point, however, I'm more interested in the successor to the K-7, hoping for an even bigger & brighter viewfinder and continued improvement in high ISO performance.</p>

[andrew robertson]

"I'm always amazed that the newest, latest and greatest is viewed as a "must have for my work" when the difference is so small,

compared to what one has."

 

Oh, man.

 

The 7D at ISO 25600 looks better than anything Pentax has at ISO 1600. One could save a lot of money by shooting at high ISO

speeds with a used, slow, long lens as opposed to a fast lens. Not to mention the increased possibilities.

 

Pentax makes great stuff but the differences are vast between any of their offerings and Canon's 7D.

[michael_elenko]

<blockquote>

<p>The 7D at ISO 25600 looks better than anything Pentax has at ISO 1600.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, Andrew, do you have any shots that you can post directly to back up this statement, perhaps some that you took personally?<br>

Thanks,</p>

<p>ME</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Michael E, Seriously <img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/troll-web.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[dogbert]

<p>I am kind of in the reverse position, wanting to jump ship to Pentax. I used Pentax in my film days but shifted to Canon in the 1990s for its AF, USM lenses and better metering. Pentax's SR in the body, weather sealing and the size and build quality of the K7 would make a really attractive travel package for me, not to mention access to those limited primes.<br>

However, Canon's AF with ring USM lenses simply leaves Pentax for dead as does the IQ of cameras like the FF 5D which can now be had second hand for around $1100. Pentax's very sad SDM micro motor DA* lenses just tells me Pentax is not catching up, rather it is falling further behind.</p>

 

[mountainvisions]

<p>Here is the deal. Back in the days of the 40D vs the K10D, the claims were 2 stops better. but the reality was maybe 1/2 stop, and at times I would say in real world shooting and proper processing more like 1/3 stop.</p>

<p>Then, came the K20D, and again the call was 2 stops difference between the D300 and K20D, when in fact, it was more like 1/2 stop at best.</p>

<p>The K-7 was a push, meaning it was about as good as the prior models, and some might argue slightly less capable. However, the K-x seems to do quite a bit better.</p>

<p>I would say if the K-x 12MP sensor was in he K-7s that the difference in Canons 7D and Pentax K-7 would be marginal at best. However, the K-7 is smaller, equally well built (possibly better built), and cost less. I won't toss in ergonomics, because each person has their own ideas of what is ideal ergonomics, but since Pentax and Nikon share similar ergonomics, I'd venture to say that Pentax is pretty decent for a large portion of photographers.</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>I'd agree Justin. As I have literally thousands of wedding phptos on this very computer taken with a 40D, 7D and a D300s along with my own from the same events. These were taken by my 'second shooters' at various weddings this past year.</p>

<p>The 40D wasn't any better than the K20D and only noticeable because the metering is about +1Ev by default. So indoors it appears cleaner but at the sacrifice of blown highlights. But overall the rendering from that camera IMO is lousy. Flat and dead looking images that needed lots of PP help.</p>

<p>The 7D is a nice camera in many respects but I'd also like to see this high ISO claim. From the 700 images or so I have here, I'd say the camera is about 1 stop better than the K20D in terms of noise control with poor indoor light. So for any critical work, 3200 would be pushing it with this body.</p>

 

[mountainvisions]

<p>Just as a note Peter, Andrew appears to own Nikon gear from his posting history (if any gear at all).</p>

<p>I am very doubtful he will be able to produce any evidence of his claim.</p>

<p>Nice to have some actual data from someone who has compared enough images shot in the same conditions.</p>

<p>Marketing is a powerful thing, it's not whether the Pentax sensors are as good (if not better in circumstances) but it's the Canikon marketing machine that simply squashes Pentax, rather than image quality.</p>

<p> </p>

[dogbert]

<p>Justin<br>

Its not marketing. Canon and Nikon simply offer a better range of lenses and bodies. Sure you can do most things with Pentax that you can do with Canon and Nikon, but people value options.<br>

While most people don't buy expensive tilt shit lenses, super telephotos, f1.2 primes, etc no one knows what the future holds and it is better to be in a system where one has those options than where they simply don't exist.<br>

It is the choice that Nikon and Canon offer that kills Pentax. Pentax survives for two reasons. It is cheaper at the entry level, which gets some cash constrained buyers in and it offers some niche products such as expensive pancake primes that a small percentage of the market wants. Much of Pentax's mid range product offers worse value than Canon.</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Geoff this is the interesting conundrum. As my work photography has grown over the last couple of years, I've gotten to know the pros in my market as well as met many at seminars and PPOC events in this region. (Professional Photographers of Canada).</p>

<p>What I find really interesting is that many if not the vast majority of these shooters are not lens collectors. They will have 4-6 lenses in their kit, Often with backups of each important lens. They typically shoot with only 2 favourite lenses. It's the serious hobby shooters that own 10, 20 + lenses. I hazard a guess that even those shooters only use 3-4 favourites most of the time.</p>

<p>For me, the most important lenses are 4. A good, fast wide zoom, A good, fast mid to long zoom, a fast 28mm and a fast 50mm. Now this isn't a wildlife kit of course. But I've read many blogs or web sites of some serious pro wildlife shooters and they will only have 1 or 2 long lenses paired with a wide zoom. So these people will go to a 3 week trip to Africa or somewhere with 3 lenses and a TC. Both types of shooters are much more interested in a simple kit that they have a completely intimate understanding of how each lens will render an image.</p>

<p>So although choice is important for all of us. If I look at the Pentax lens line, It's in very good shape. There are a couple of lenses I'd love for my shooting. Maybe a 20mm f1.8, a very fast 90-100mm and/or a 135-150mm f1.8 or f2. Then as I said before, if I was in the market, I'd buy a Sigma 500mm for my long needs. I simple don't see a lens issue with the line, other than a mid prime that is fast. Plus when it comes to top quality shorter primes, we have the best line in the business.</p>

<p>So I disagree that the lens line is a big issue. Every line has holes. Look at all the Canon and Nikon lenses under 100mm that are missing VR and IS. Both lines (and the kit lens does not count) are missing stabilization under 100mm. This segment of any line is the most used and probably in the most need of stabilized glass. You might buy an f1.2 whatever, but do you shoot wide open? Maybe 10=20% of the time for creative work. You buy the fast glass for focus assist and because it's generally the sharper lenses. Not having VR or IS is a huge issue in my book for these.</p>

<p> </p>

[marius_mirea]

<blockquote>

<p>Much of Pentax's mid range product offers worse value than Canon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO the K-x and the K-7x will change that.<br>

In fact Pentax offers the opportunity to stand out from the crowd. There is a little poetry in holding a Limited lens, there is a little smile when one sees the Canikons "big guns" flashed around, hell it even feels good to be the underdog that can overthrow the so-callled "leaders" in terms of the general feel of taking pictures, not only the final results may them be counted in mega pixels, pics/second or high ISO.<br>

An analogy that comes to mind could be that of the British-style sport cars and German-style sport cars. Each has it's own feeling and benefits. Anyway, it is a good thing that we have so many high quality choices nowadays. </p>

[dogbert]

<p>Peter<br>

Have you asked the professionals in your area why they don't shoot Pentax? As I said much of Canon's mid range products are better value. Canon has a 24 f2.8, 28 f1.8, 35 f2, 50 f1.8 and f1.4, 85 f1.8, 100 f2 mostly priced between $100 and $400. Pentax has its limiteds which are mostly slower and more expensive, though nicely built. From what I have seen the Canon primes are just as good optically.<br>

And just because one rarely shoots at f1.8 or f2 doesn't mean that it is not useful to be able to do so.<br>

Not being able to do that 10 to 20 per cent of wide open shots just rules out Pentax for me. Photography is not about the averages, it is about the exceptions.</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Geoff, I bet if you asked shooters in many markets, you'd get the same responses I get. They often learned on Pentax but when it came time to switch from film to Digital, Pentax was a couple years behind and had no cameras to sell. So they bought into a brand that had DSLR's. Pentax dropped the ball in a huge way. I stuck with my LX, PZ-1p and 6x7. So I still had my lenses to make the move to the *istD.<br /> So once these shooters made the investment in glass for their needs, they weren't going to dump $10,000+ in gear for sentimental reasons.</p>

<p>Let me just wave the flag a little and not as a fan boy. I was in a competition with 200 submissions for the cover shot of the regional (4 provinces) bridal magazine. I posted about this a month or so ago. Well of all those submissions a Pentax camera took the shot that placed second and the publisher liked the shot so much, it's going full size on the back cover.</p>

<p>Now looking at the lenses you mention<br /> 24mm f2.8 - Who cares. It's 2.8 and most zooms of high quality can cover this equally well.<br /> 28mm f1.8 - Pentax 31mm or Sigma 28mm f1.8 (which I own and use with great results regularly).<br /> 35mm f2 - Lots of FA's around still and again close enough to the 31mm that you can have better. But I think they should have left the FA in the line even with the 35mm macro.<br /> 50mm f1.8 - FA50mm f1.4 or 55mm f1.4 or 43mm f1.8 (the superior lens of the bunch)<br /> 85mm f1.8 - FA77mm f1.8.<br /> 100mm f2 - I already said this is a hole where we could use a lens around 90-100mm.</p>

<p>Lets take the Canon 50mm f1.8 vs the 43mm or 50mm. I've used all 3 quite a bit. The Canon is the worst of the 3 and frankly not much better than the kit lens near it's widest apertures. It surprised me and not worth a cent more than they charge for it. I'd pay the premium to get a lens that takes a good shot.</p>

<p>Most of the time, above 20mm, the difference between a 43mm and a 50mm is minor. Make a step forward or back as needed to get the framing you want. With Ultra wides, that 1-2mm is huge. But all 3 lines have that well covered.<br /> Look, you have your position. I respect that, I have mine and we will have to agree to disagree.<br /> I counter that the lens line is not a problem now. Had you asked me this 3 years ago. I'd say you were right. But not now. If you want to create shallow DOF shots with a Pentax prime, there are plenty of fast options available. Again with Sigma to compliment most of the line, there's no issue.</p>

<p>I never said that you could not take shallow DOF shots with a Pentax. Lets take the 31mm or 43mm. Both fast, both render incredible images and both can take fantastic shallow DOF shots.<br /> I noticed that with your lens list, you ignored the SR vs lack of VR/IS on any of that list. To me that why I wouldn't switch to either line. To have a low light capable lens to use in a bar, party reception or whatever and be handicapped by 3 stops is senseless. I've just taken a sharp, fast lens, cranked up the ISO to get a decent shutter speed and lost any advantage I might have had.</p>

<p>One final point. My fun lenses are Takumars. Yes you can adapt them to other platforms. But if you want a 40 year old lens with SR to go and have some shallow DOF shots? Buy an SMC Tak 50mm. Still one of the best lenses ever built.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Canon 28 f1.8 USM= $459<br>

Canon 35 f2 = $299<br>

Pentax 31 f1.8 = $1299<br>

Canon 50 f1.8 = $99<br>

Canon 50 f1.4 USM = $349<br>

Pentax 55 f1.4 SDM = $799<br>

Canon 85 f1.8 USM = $379<br>

Pentax 77 f1.8 = $1049<br>

All of these lenses are reviewed and tested on photozone and the conclusion I come to is that the Canons perform about the same as Pentax, sometime a tiny bit better, sometimes a tiny bit worse but the differences are splitting hairs.<br>

I rest my case.</p>

 

[personalphotos]

<p>Well I'm glad you feel better. As I said, we can agree to disagree. Of course many Pentax shooters have been disappointed with some lenses recent price increases. But at the risk of beating the dead horse. There's always Sigma on a budget.<br>

If Pentax isn't your cup of tea, buy whatever suits your needs and budget.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Hmmm...just checked B&H and Adorama:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Pentax 31 Ltd (an <em>all metal</em> lens, not plastic): $965.</li>

<li>Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 (which you didn't list): $360 (available for $200 until 6 months ago).</li>

<li>Pentax 77 Ltd (an <em>all metal</em> lens, not plastic): $785.</li>

</ul>