Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
Mark, Again, remember price point. For your willingness to spend the money to get a 1DS (that's correct isn't it?) Canon is a far better line for you to be in. Even though Pal disagrees with me, I think Pentax caters to Pros in the medium format market. Their 35mm offerings are really geared towards amateurs and hobbyists. Want to venture a guess on how much that new Canon is going to cost? Bruce Thursday, February 27, 2003, 9:41:12 AM, you wrote: MR I'm probably not alone in my disappointment that Pentax's new 18-35 zoom MR is a cheesy J lens with an aperture of 4.0-5.6, but it makes it even MR worse to see something like this: MR 17-40mm zoom MR Constant f/4.0 aperture MR Canon mount :( MR http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03022709canonef1740.asp
Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again, remember price point. For your willingness to spend the money to get a 1DS (that's correct isn't it?) Canon is a far better line for you to be in. Even though Pal disagrees with me, I think Pentax caters to Pros in the medium format market. Their 35mm offerings are really geared towards amateurs and hobbyists. Want to venture a guess on how much that new Canon is going to cost? Presumably, less than their 17-35/2.8, which is only around $1200 street price. Thursday, February 27, 2003, 9:41:12 AM, you wrote: MR I'm probably not alone in my disappointment that Pentax's new 18-35 zoom MR is a cheesy J lens with an aperture of 4.0-5.6, but it makes it even MR worse to see something like this: MR 17-40mm zoom MR Constant f/4.0 aperture MR Canon mount :( MR http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03022709canonef1740.asp -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
Mark wrote: I'm probably not alone in my disappointment that Pentax's new 18-35 zoom is a cheesy J lens with an aperture of 4.0-5.6, but it makes it even worse to see something like this: 17-40mm zoom Constant f/4.0 aperture Canon mount :( http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03022709canonef1740.asp But doesn't this Canon lens cost five times as much as the Pentax? Pål
Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
On Thursday, Feb 27, 2003, at 19:21 Europe/Warsaw, Bruce Dayton wrote: Again, remember price point. For your willingness to spend the money to get a 1DS (that's correct isn't it?) Canon is a far better line for you to be in. Even though Pal disagrees with me, I think Pentax caters to Pros in the medium format market. Their 35mm offerings are really geared towards amateurs and hobbyists. Want to venture a guess on how much that new Canon is going to cost? Bruce, you are absolutely right. New wide-angle FAJ will be much, much cheaper and affordable for almost everyone, who would need to add wide angle lens to his DSLR setup. Tu buy Canon's L 17-35, you will need to pay at least 2x or 3x price of new FAJ... Not to mention, that this FAJ is probably 2x smaller and lighter - this count for many too. But of course I hope Pentax will offer something similar to Canon anytime soon. Regards Sylwek
Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
How about we wait and see what else they have in their bag...who knows we could still get a couple of FA* lenses in the super wide ranges to go with this puppy. A FA* 14mm, or an FA* 17-35mm, and an FA* 35-135mm would be pretty handy would'nt they? Cheers Shaun Mark Roberts wrote: I'm probably not alone in my disappointment that Pentax's new 18-35 zoom is a cheesy J lens with an aperture of 4.0-5.6, but it makes it even worse to see something like this: 17-40mm zoom Constant f/4.0 aperture Canon mount :( http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03022709canonef1740.asp -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
When was the last time we got a star lens? The 200/4? What was that, 3 years ago? tv -Original Message- From: Shaun Canning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] How about we wait and see what else they have in their bag...who knows we could still get a couple of FA* lenses in the super wide ranges to go with this puppy. A FA* 14mm, or an FA* 17-35mm, and an FA* 35-135mm would be pretty handy would'nt they? Cheers Shaun
Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When was the last time we got a star lens? The 200/4? What was that, 3 years ago? So we're overdue! (I'm an optim*ist!) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
I'm with John Mustarde...I have a lovely Tokina 300mm f2.8 and a 1.7x AF converter that just became a 765mm f4.5 AF lens... :-) :-) :-) ;-) Cheers Shaun Ryan K. Brooks wrote: Indeed. I've been considering how the great FA300/4.5 will become a very nice, very portable medium-long wildlife lens. (450mm, and wonderful wide open) -R Shaun Canning wrote: Now there's an interesting thought...FA* 200mm macro on the *ist D = 300mm f4 macro... Cheers Shaun Mark Roberts wrote: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When was the last time we got a star lens? The 200/4? What was that, 3 years ago? So we're overdue! (I'm an optim*ist!) . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
Well it's a Canon so it's like a cheesy j lens by default, otherwise I find it to be just a tad depressing. At 12:41 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, you wrote: I'm probably not alone in my disappointment that Pentax's new 18-35 zoom is a cheesy J lens with an aperture of 4.0-5.6, but it makes it even worse to see something like this: 17-40mm zoom Constant f/4.0 aperture Canon mount :( http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03022709canonef1740.asp -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
RE: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
Pentax probably COULD have made a lens similar to the Canon's non L glass zoom but that would have probably sucked up resources that were used to make the *istD. Not to mention that they did say that they were going to be releasing some newer lenses in the Fall for the DSLR. Cheers, Dave View my images online at Usefilm.com http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=portdata=603 -Original Message- From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made... Well it's a Canon so it's like a cheesy j lens by default, otherwise I find it to be just a tad depressing. At 12:41 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, you wrote: I'm probably not alone in my disappointment that Pentax's new 18-35 zoom is a cheesy J lens with an aperture of 4.0-5.6, but it makes it even worse to see something like this: 17-40mm zoom Constant f/4.0 aperture Canon mount :( http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03022709canonef1740.asp -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
I think it would be great if pentax did make a zoom of around the 18-35 range with a constant max aperture of 2.8. It would be useful for me not necesarily because i would shoot at 2.8, but for the ease of focusing manually, or atleast seeing where the critical point of focus is, trying manually focus an F4 or slower lens at 20mm or something is a nightmare, not that its great at 2.8, but it is useable. I think this is the main lens that is missing from the Pentax lens lineup. - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 11:42 AM Subject: Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made... Well it's a Canon so it's like a cheesy j lens by default, otherwise I find it to be just a tad depressing. At 12:41 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, you wrote: I'm probably not alone in my disappointment that Pentax's new 18-35 zoom is a cheesy J lens with an aperture of 4.0-5.6, but it makes it even worse to see something like this: 17-40mm zoom Constant f/4.0 aperture Canon mount :( http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03022709canonef1740.asp -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
Pentax probably COULD have made a lens similar to the Canon's non L glass zoom If they did i would hope it was considerably better that the Canon 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, which is a flarey hunk of crap. Maybe the 17-40/4 is to replace this lens due to inadequicies. -Original Message- From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made... Well it's a Canon so it's like a cheesy j lens by default, otherwise I find it to be just a tad depressing. At 12:41 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, you wrote: I'm probably not alone in my disappointment that Pentax's new 18-35 zoom is a cheesy J lens with an aperture of 4.0-5.6, but it makes it even worse to see something like this: 17-40mm zoom Constant f/4.0 aperture Canon mount :( http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03022709canonef1740.asp -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
Sad thing is.. almost every lens flares - and there are ways to avoid flare - the 20-35 Canon offering is probably better than the Vivitar 19mm I had for K mount and I had no problems using the Vivitar even though everyone whined about flare. I think if you're careful in how you take the image, you can minimize or reduce flare. That being said, I'd still like to get a hold of the 17-40mm f4 to see what it's like Cheers, Dave View my images online at Usefilm.com http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=portdata=603 -Original Message- From: Paul Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made... Pentax probably COULD have made a lens similar to the Canon's non L glass zoom If they did i would hope it was considerably better that the Canon 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, which is a flarey hunk of crap. Maybe the 17-40/4 is to replace this lens due to inadequicies.
Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
On 03.2.27 7:58 PM, David Chang-Sang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not to mention that they did say that they were going to be releasing some newer lenses in the Fall for the DSLR. Hi, Didn't they also say, when the first DSLR news broke from Japan and UK, that there would be wide angle lenses (note; pulral) to go with the DSLR? One was a cheap WA zoom to go with another zoom in a kit as announced. But that will leave either a decent zoom (2.8?) or a prime, don't you think? Ones they are hinting for the fall announcement might be totally different beasts :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
on 2/27/03 11:41 AM, Mark Roberts at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm probably not alone in my disappointment that Pentax's new 18-35 zoom is a cheesy J lens with an aperture of 4.0-5.6, but it makes it even worse to see something like this: 17-40mm zoom Constant f/4.0 aperture Canon mount :( http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03022709canonef1740.asp As others have noted, the FA20-35/4.0 really is a nice lens. I suspect it will be my standard lens if/when I get the *ist-D. Stan
Re: The lens that Pentax SHOULD have made...
I've been considering how the great FA300/4.5 will become a very nice, very portable medium-long wildlife lens. (450mm, and wonderful wide open) And the F* version will be even nicer - that tripod mount difference between the F* and the FA* will seem even more important at 450mm, right? Fred
