r.t. dowling

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y144/mec407/P1010001.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="600" /><br /> <strong>Olympus E-PL1 + RainbowImaging K-mount adapter + Pentax A 50/1.7<br /></strong></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y144/mec407/IMGP1258.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="311" /><br /> <strong>Pentax K100D + Pentax DA 18-55</strong></p>

<p>One last try (via PhotoBucket this time):</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y144/mec407/P1010001.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Argh...</p>

<p>I'm getting this error message when I try to attach an image:</p>

<h2>Server Error</h2>

<p>The requested URL cannot be accessed due to a system error on this server.</p>

<p align="RIGHT"><small><em>AOLserver/4.5.1 on http://www.photo.net</em></small></p>

<p align="RIGHT"><em><br /></em></p>

<p align="RIGHT"><em><br /></em></p>

<p>Trying again; got a site error message the first time around.</p>

<p>Testing out my new E-PL1 with K-mount adapter and SMC PENTAX-A 50/1.7.</p>

<p>Thanks, guys!</p>

<p>How does the optical quality compare when both lenses are at 150mm?</p>

<p>I'd be using it with an E-PL1, and possibly an E-M5 at some point down the road, therefore the OIS isn't something I need per se... but I don't see the harm in having it, especially at a $100 discount!</p>

<p>Amazon currently has the Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 Lumix G Vario MEGA OIS Zoom for $199. The Olympus M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 R Micro ED and the Olympus ED M40-150mm f4.0-5.6 are selling for $299 and $289, respectively.</p>

<p>Aside from the Olympus lenses being a bit smaller and a bit lighter, is there any compelling reason to spend the extra hundred dollars, rather than get the Panasonic? Or to put it another way: how do these lenses compare, in terms of optical performance? </p>

<p>Thanks, Bruce! I'm charging the battery now and will update the firmware next.</p>

<p>I've looked at the test images on DPReview and the high-ISO noise levels seem at least as good as my 6mp APS-C Pentax (which was one of the low-noise champions of its time). Not bad at all, considering the E-PL1 has twice as many pixels.</p>

<p>I'm really looking forward to using my Pentax 50/1.7 and Nikon 28/2.8 primes with it. </p>

<p>My new E-PL1 just arrived (no thanks to the UPS man who tossed it onto the stoop without so much as ringing the bell or knocking on the door). As I mentioned in another thread, I got the black one with 14-42 lens, brand new, for $279 with free shipping and a free accidental damage warranty. At that price I just couldn't pass it up.</p>

<p>My DSLR (Pentax K100D) is getting a bit long in the tooth, and my point-and-shoot (Panasonic ZS-7) is pretty much useless above ISO 200. I'm hoping the E-PL1 will be a useful bridge between the two.</p>

<p>I also bought a RainbowImaging Pentax K adapter, and will probably buy the Nikon F adapter if the Pentax one performs satisfactorily.</p>

<p>So, I'd love to hear from the E-PL1 users who've been shooting with these cams for a while. If there's anything you think I should know, I'm all ears. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Don't forget, Pentax lenses are cropped sensor glass, not full frame glass."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not all of them. To wit: DFA 50/2.8 Macro, DFA 100/2.8 Macro, FA 31 Ltd, FA 43 Ltd, FA 77 Ltd, possibly the DA* 200 and 300 (I've heard of people using these on film cameras), and possibly the DA 35/2.4... and let's face it, Pentax <em>could</em> easily bring back a lot of their old full frame glass if they wanted to. They just don't want to.</p>

<p>And I agree with Dave: people who are buying Pentax lenses deserve more than a 1-year warranty. If you buy a Nikon 50/1.8 for $130, you get a 5-year warranty. If you buy a Pentax DA* 60-250 for $2000, you get a 1-year warranty. That's downright insulting.</p>

<p>What Peter Zack said.</p>

<p>And the reason why I don't consider this situation comparable to Nikon is because Nikon has been releasing new, great, affordable lenses at the same time they've been raising prices on some of their high-end lenses... and a few of their oldest and most useful lenses (50/1.8 and 28/2.8, for example) are still priced the same today as they were 7-10 years ago. So at least the beginners/students/retirees/poor folks aren't totally screwed in Nikon land. Meanwhile, Pentax doesn't even <em>have</em> a 50/1.8 (1.7) or 28/2.8 anymore... they discontinued them, forcing low-budget Pentax shooters to fend for themselves on the used market where prices continue to climb due to constantly shrinking availability.</p>

<p>I just bought a RainbowImaging K-mount adapter for Micro Four Thirds. I haven't used it yet, but it seems pretty well made. If it works well, I'll probably also buy their Nikon adapter.</p>

<p>Amazon carries several RainbowImaging adapters, as well as some Fotodiox adapters. That's where I bought mine.</p>

<p>Andrew, the one I purchased is just the plain K adapter -- it doesn't have an aperture ring. That's fine with me because the lenses I plan to use with it are "A" lenses that have their own built-in aperture rings, so I can set the aperture directly on the lens itself. The only DA lens I have is the original 18-55, which I might try using on the E-PL1 just for fun, but probably wouldn't use it very often.</p>

<p>I, too, will soon be dipping my toes into the Micro Four Thirds waters: I was able to find an E-PL1, brand new with kit lens, for $279 shipped. I should have it in a day or two. They even threw in an accidental damage warranty at no charge. At that price it was just too good to pass up.</p>

<p>I've also ordered a RainbowImaging Pentax-K adapter so that I can use my existing K-mount lenses, and may add the Nikon-F adapter at some point -- my small, light Nikon Series E lenses should be a lot of fun to use again.</p>

<p>Johan: people certainly have plenty of unkind things to say about the DA* 16-50, but that's been the case for several years, and part of the reason why people have been so vocal about it is because it's the flagship pro zoom of the Pentax DSLR range. It <em>should</em> have been an excellent (or better than excellent) lens. Instead, it's a "love it or hate it" lens. If you were lucky enough to get an exceptionally good copy, you were in the "love it" camp; if you got a so-so or bad copy, you were in the "hate it" camp. (Hate is a strong word, but it's an expensive lens and people expected it to be great, not mediocre. Iffy customer service from Pentax didn't help, especially when [for example] the SDM motor died within a couple of weeks of the warranty running out, forcing the customer to spend big bucks to have it repaired.)</p>

<p>As far as the other lenses are concerned, I think a lot of people are justifiably upset by the price increases, but I haven't seen (at least not in this thread) anyone suggesting that most (or all) Pentax lenses are rubbish. I think almost everyone here would agree that the Limited lenses are optically and mechanically quite spectacular. It's just upsetting to see some of them DOUBLE in price, especially since they were not inexpensive to begin with. (Most of them were way out of my price range even at their old prices, but now there's absolutely no way I'd ever be able to afford them.)</p>

<p>Contact the attorney general in the state where you live. I'm sure Panasonic will answer their call. ;-)</p>

<p>Is there any possibility that these lenses were actually being manufactured in the Tokina factory, and that Tokina decided to jack up what they were charging to Pentax -- forcing Pentax to pass that hike on to the consumer?</p>

<p>If so, it would certainly behoove Pentax to reopen (or rebuild, if it's gone) their old lensmaking facility.</p>

<p>I totally understand! :-) I'd like to get another year out of my K100D before I replace it. I've had it for six years and I think I've gotten my money's worth, but hanging onto it for another year would give me more time to save up for a D7000... or perhaps a "K-02", which [crossing my fingers] would have a built-in EVF.</p>

<p>Howard: a few days ago Amazon was selling the Panasonic LX-5 for $320, which seemed like a great deal, and I was more than a little tempted. It's now back up to $360... but if you're in the market for a quality P&S, I'd suggest keeping an eye on it. The price may come back down.</p>

<p>(I'd prefer an Olympus XZ-1, which surprisingly has a sharper lens than the LX-5's Leica-branded lens, but the XZ-1 is still selling for $490. If it ever comes down to $399 or less, that's the one I'd recommend over the LX-5.)</p>

<p>Michael E., you took the thoughts right out of my head. I happened to be doing some browsing on Amazon today and decided to scope out various lenses just to see what the going rates are. I specifically looked for the Tokina 35/2.8 macro, and like you said, it is <em>substantially</em> less expensive than the Pentax version. I suppose we could get into a debate of how many of these Tokina sells for Canon vs. how many Pentax sells (obviously there are a lot more Canon owners in the world), and what the costs are for the superior design/build quality of the Pentax version, but I'm having a hard time believing that the Pentax version should cost more than <em>twice</em> as much as the Canon version. Especially since the Canon version has an internal focus motor.</p>

<p>I also searched for the Tokina 16-50 and 50-135 and couldn't find them, but the last time I looked (maybe a year ago?) they were significantly less than their Pentax counterparts... but perhaps not as huge of a price difference as what we're seeing today. I remember thinking to myself that the Tokina 35/2.8 macro and 50-135 in Nikon mount were surprisingly good bargains, given their optical quality. </p>

<p>Is Pentax's game to lure us in with well-spec'd affordable bodies and then rape us on lens prices? Seems like they're taking a page out of the inkjet printer manufacturers' playbooks.</p>

<p>Also consider that during the past year or two, Tamron has chosen to ignore Pentax mount with most of their new lenses. This, too, is nudging me closer to Nikon, I'm afraid.</p>

<p>I'm surprised they haven't re-released the 17-70 f/4 in a WR version. Seems like they'd sell like hotcakes. It would be an ideal kit lens for the K-5. (Most of you know I'm quite fond of the 18-55, and I'm sure the WR version is great, but there's just something strange about bundling their least-expensive lens with their top tier camera. You don't see Nikon bundling their 18-55 with the D7000 or D300<em>s</em>...)</p>

<p>Yikes. So much for Pentax being "the affordable brand." Cripes.</p>

<p>Nikon is looking better and better, especially with their excellent 35/1.8 still priced at a very reasonable $199. </p>

<p>How does Nikon manage to do this in-camera without such a big slow-down? Does Pentax just need to use a better/faster image processing engine?</p>