From: John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:52:12 -0700
...and the least featured. The NIkon and Canon 300/4 and 300/2.8 lenses have ultrasonic lens motors which allow full-time manual focus; the Canons also have image stabilization. These are modern, valuable, and useful features. The Pentax FA 300/4.5 does not even have a tripod mount; the Pentax 300/2.8 is way overpriced in the US compared to K-mount lenses just as good (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina.)
IS comes at a price few can afford.
Original brand lenses are more expensive than a 3rd party brand. That's normal. It has been like this since the dawn of photography. If you don't like the price of a Pentax lens, then buy from Sigma or whatever.
If this comparison includes 400/5.6 lenses, the Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro beats this whole group hands down in value-for-dollar.
I did not include 3rd party makers, I didn't included Minolta either. I can't include everything. I only have two hands and 10 fingers. :-) I have to make a selection, and I choosed Pentax, Nikon and Canon because that's been on topic lately. Sigma, Tokina - and Tamron, makes some very good lenses. I'm personally more tempted by Sigma's telephotos than Pentax, I have no problems buying a Sigma (my first telezoom was the Sigma A70-210 f/4-5.6 and I liked it a lot, I now have the Sigma AF 24 f/2.8 which I think is awesome when considering how little I paid for it). But, as we can see from my comparision - stating that Pentax aren't competetive in price (when compared to Nikon and Canon, not when compared to Sigma) is not true.
Let's face it - Canon has all the goods in pro quality lenses and accessories.
But at a price.
Pentax can do fine in many areas.
They are doing fine in many areas.
Nikon has a couple of very good lenses but the Nikon line as a whole is not yet substantiality more advanced than Pentax.
Even the Nikon lenses without IS and USM are in general more expensive than comparable lenses from Pentax. With IS and USM technology, they're more expensive than Canon's offerings.
I don't believe that Nikon lenses are better than Pentax in terms of optical performance. I know that they have higher contrast (smaller contrast range), which means that they lack the micro detailing of Pentax glass - but this can give a false impression of sharpness. I prefer the natural colour rendition of Pentax glass. (thank god for SMC!). And yes, SMC is a feature and a technological breakthrough. But I guess that some value USM more than SMC, very strange.
Best wishes, Roland
_________________________________________________________________ Lättare att hitta drömresan med MSN Resor http://www.msn.se/resor/
