Pete D wrote:
> "Doug Jewell" <ask@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:47e74833$0$17353$5a62ac22@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Pete D wrote:
>>> "Doug Jewell" <ask@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:47e7034b$0$17341$5a62ac22@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Cryptopixel wrote:
>>>>> http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm
>>>> Clicked send on my other reply before I was ready. oops. Anyway, as I
>>>> said before, nice pic doug.
>>>>> Sigma and other after market lens makers have some exceptional
lenses
>>>>> in their ranges. The patented nature of lens based image
stabilization
>>>>> means that these smaller makers are at a substancial disadvantage...
>>>>> Until the likes of Pentax and Sony (to name just two) catch up with
>>>>> camera body technology.
>>>>>
>>>>> The latest Pentax K20D is one example of where serious photographers
>>>>> can save thousands of dollars and not sacrifice anything, compared
to
>>>>> buying Canon and Nikon kits. In-camera image stabilization saves
>>>>> photographers serious money when buying excellent quality lenses.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Sigma 70 -200 F/2.8 (macro) that took this picture costs less
than
>>>>> half of what a VR Nikon equivalent costs. Almost enough price
>>>>> difference to pay for a Pentax K20D body!
>>>> Was this shot with a K20D? - I thought you were using S5's and D300s.
>>>>> It's hard to justify the weight and cost of in-lens gyros when
cameras
>>>>> with sensor based IS are now every bit as good as their Canon and
>>>>> Nikon rivals.
>>>> Most tests tend to show that lens based IS is better than body based,
>>>> and that's probably right. But we survived so long without any IS at
>>>> all, that surely there are more im****tant things to rate a system on
>>>> than the performance of IS with one or two particular lenses. Canon &
>>>> Nikon definitely have a better range of fast telephoto lenses than
>>>> Pentax do - this makes In-Body or In-Lens IS irrelevant if it is hard
to
>>>> even find a suitable lens for the body. But certainly for someone who
>>>> mostly needs wide through to moderate-telephoto the Pentax system
>>>> represents exceptional value.
>>> Not sure what lenses you need in Pentax mount but their 200mm F2.8
looks
>>> pretty good and their soon to be released 300mm F4 will probably be
good
>>> as well. If you really need big glass though I would suggest that
Pentax
>>> is not for you.
>> Pentax certainly offers all that I need, and then some! But for some of
>> the s****ts and wildlife nuts, the lack of fast 300+ glass is a
compelling
>> reason not to go pentax.
>>> If you are shooting with a K20D it would seem that faster long lenses
>>> while normally desirable may not be quite as needed as they once were
>>> because the high ISO performance is getting to be so good.
>> True, but regardless of how high you can go in ISO, if you have fast
glass
>> you will always have an advantage over slow glass. Yes, the high ISO
>> performance of the K20 will mean a K20 & 5.6 lens will do what would
need
>> a 2.8 lens on the K10, but a K20 & 2.8 lens will be better again.
Whether
>> that translates into faster shutters for better frozen motion, or
whether
>> it translates into lower light shooting is up to the owner, but
>> regardless, they are still better off with the fast glass.
>
>
> Correct for the "Pro" shooters but for the "average" shooter they will
do
> just fine.
yup, which is why the Pro's tend to mainly use Nikon &
Canon, but for the "average" shooter, Pentax will do just
fine. Long fast glass is about the only hole in the Pentax
line up though. They cover wide-angle through to moderate
telephoto better than pretty much any other system. All
depends on what you want to do with it.
>
>
|
