Prime?


johnriley

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 07:52
There has always been talk of major marques making lenses for each others' camera bodies, but it very rarely happens.

The last ones I have seen were actually Pentax lenses made for Leica rangefinder bodies.

There's no Holy Grail out there from other makes that would make one jot of difference to the end result. All the marques are excellent, all have some lesser lenses that soon disappear.

The more sensible approach IMHO is if you actually do need an 85mm f1.2 lens then you buy into a camera system that has one.
Best regards, John

Algernon

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 09:27
Pentax were rumored to have made 50mm's for other marques and the Ricoh 200mm f/4 is reported here as being the same as the Pentax-M even though the filter sizes are different.

Pentax urgently need an equivalent to the Canon 100-400mm lens
Or Tokina release their latest 80-400mm. I've got the older one which I think John also has (posted a shot once from Martin Mere) and it isn't too bad in good light, but I would like the latest version if Pentax aren't releasing one.

Just been reading about someone having problems with the Canon 100-400mm (which Canon fixed) on Wild About Britain and he had been using a 1.4TC with it but nowhere in 3 pages did anyone say there was anything wrong with that I wouldn't risk a TC on the Tokina

Frogfish... sorry haven't got time to argue and it isn't welcome on this forum. I would suggest you learn a bit more about photography in particular how most bird photographers use a lot of manual focus, so slow AF isn't a problem. 250-600mm zooms and adapted telescopes aren't fast to use either.

Two Pentax lenses you have put down the 80-320mm and 55-300mm are both excellent. The Pentax 1.7x actually does the focussing, so I can't see how it works for you with one lens OK and slow with another. Possibly you might be better moving to another marque, such as Nikon.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 08/04/2011 - 09:29

johnwhit

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 09:57
K10D wrote:

IQ was well acceptable but the 50-135 had to be in manual, then pre focused to somewhere near with the AF1.7 then locking on. My main surprise was the vast increase in speed of the focus on the K7.


Best regards

Thanks for that, I knew there was a reason I chose not to bother with one despite the almost legendary optical performance.

John
PPG link

In LBA hiatus.

Algernon

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 10:20
Some mention of Pentax and the Tokina 80-400mm on Flickr.

Someone used it with a 1.4TC Flickr

And the usual Flickr pool

A post I did earlier with Pentax 55-300mm shots
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

Unlocker

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 11:23
Algernon wrote:
250-600mm zooms and adapted telescopes aren't fast to use either.

Could you explain what you mean here as I'm confused.

It focusses faster than any SDM lens I've owned and F5.6 @ 600mm isn't exactly slow. Supported well, I find it quite fast to use.

WebsiteBlogGearTwitterFacebook

Algernon

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 11:52
Hi Danny, I mean slow setting up and moving about
I'm not sure how long an 800mm telescope takes to move and focus

I used to see someone with a massive Nikon set up waiting for birds to come to him!!.... too much trouble to do it the other way around

I did post a link to a Pentax 600mm mounted on a tripod with an extra stay they had to adjust every time they changed the sight line It was made by Manfrotto.

Glad to hear it's fast being a screwdrive. I used to like the focus on the F* 300mm. SDM's haven't exactly set any speed records
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 08/04/2011 - 11:55

Unlocker

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 12:10
Well, I'm not going to disagree that it takes a couple of mins to set up, but once setup it only takes seconds to pick up, lean over shoulder and setup again.

Setting it up and waiting for the birds to come to you is the way to go. Shooting the red kites shows that they just get used to you being there. Shots like these would be a lot harder to get if you were walking around hoping to get lucky! It's not too much trouble at all, it's patience!




Think I saw the tripod stay pic too, if it's the same one Im thinking of, the answer there, as I owned the same tripod, is sell it and get a better tripod and head, no need for the extra stay then!

WebsiteBlogGearTwitterFacebook

Algernon

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 12:46
You've got quite an expensive tripod and head, which makes it easier..... not quite as easy as handholding a 300mm +2X TC though

This is the one with the stay..... it's a 6x7 and he actually considers TWO tripods first
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

Algernon

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 12:55
Eventually the weight and bulk got too much for him and he found that he could get better results with a 400mm lens + 1.4x TC

So he sold the 600mm
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

thoughton

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 13:03
That's not quite accurate, as I think you know Algernon

Quote:
After only a short ownership period the 600mm f/4 lens disqualified itself for me because of excessive bulk and weight. But before I sold it I decided that it would be interesting to see how the new 400mm lens with the 1.4X extender would compare.

Doesn't sound like he sold the 600 because of better results from the 400. He was going to sell it anyway.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27, Macbook Pro 17, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr Fluidr PPG Street Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!

Unlocker

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 13:09
That article is 10 years old now, biggest problems there are aluminium tripod and shooting at 1/160s!

WebsiteBlogGearTwitterFacebook
Last Edited by Unlocker on 08/04/2011 - 13:09

Frogfish

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 14:12
[quote:3496ace15f="Algernon"]

Quote:
Frogfish... sorry haven't got time to argue and it isn't welcome on this forum.

You seem to be having some difficulty comprehending this ... I am looking for an apology for the lie you perpetrated. ! You seem to under the misapprehension that not only is it OK to assert someone said something - when just reading through the thread it's absolutely clear to all that they didn't - but it's also OK to then take the piss out of them for the lie you just invented ! Now, this time, don't weasel away with your nose in the air trying to play some sort of morality card - rather rich considering you are fabricating statements and claiming they are made by another poster. Man up !

Quote:
I would suggest you learn a bit more about photography in particular how most bird photographers use a lot of manual focus, so slow AF isn't a problem. 250-600mm zooms and adapted telescopes aren't fast to use either.

You are obviously NOT a birder (which I am) and yet you want to offer me advice ? On what should I base that ? The zoo and farm birds you've posted ? Or do you think 1,900 posts somehow makes you qualified to comment on areas of photography you are not a proponent of ? I'm still waiting for your wildlife / bird shots (real ones) with the 55-300 & the x1.7.

Check my threads - kingfishers & many others with a Tamron BB 500 (you do know that IS full manual of course ?). How would you suggest using MF for BIF shots (such as my recent ones) ? I don't know a single birder who uses MF for BIF , maybe there are some but 99% won't even attempt it.

And it is exactly because of my birding passion, and progression from the 80-320 / 70-300 / 55-300 / x1.4 / x1.7 and now to the DA*300, that I said that TCs don't play nicely on the 55-300. Not for BIF, not for birds in bushes or trees with a lot of foliage and low contrast, not for skittish birds such as tits. TCs on the 55-300 mean f8 at best and slow AF if you can achieve focus at all .... do you need me to explain why that doesn't work with the subjects I've just mentioned ? Maybe great for your chicken, geese and swans, I accept that.

The 250-600 etc.? Really ?! The finest proponent i know of with this lense is Marc Langille (I'm sure there are others), Google him. Check his threads. I assure you that he doesn't use that fantastic lense the way you seem to imagine people use it.

Quote:
Two Pentax lenses you have put down the 80-320mm and 55-300mm are both excellent.

Here you go again - you're very inventive I'll give you that.

The 80-320 (another lense I used to own) is not an excellent lense, you must have very low standards if you think that lense 'excellent' - a quick look at the user reports on PF should clarify this for you. Decent, not excellent.

I still love my 55-300 ... but not for use with TCs ! I'll just refer you to my previous post, as regurgitating the same facts seems to have no effect on you - you swan past ignoring anything that is contrary to your argument that you find you can't disprove.

Quote:
The Pentax 1.7x actually does the focussing, so I can't see how it works for you with one lens OK and slow with another.

I can't make out if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you are on a wind up. Read my previous posts and you should (though now I'm far from certain you will) understand.

Quote:
Possibly you might be better moving to another marque, such as Nikon.

*shakes head in disbelief* well I'm afraid that's just a truly desperate comment isn't it.

Really no point in continuing because you clearly don't know your Anas from your Tits where birding is concerned and you are certainly not man enough to apologise for your blatant lie and subsequent propagation of the lie, by using it as the basis for a dig at me ! That's truly perverse.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Last Edited by Frogfish on 08/04/2011 - 14:38

greynolds999

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 14:25
Am I the only one who thinks this thread has drifted from helping a newcomer to a pointless fight?
My Photobucket

thoughton

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 14:30
Well, I dunno if it's pointless. I'd agree that Algernon has taken a few creative liberties with statements that Frogfish has made, and then been fairly rude about it afterward. I'd be annoyed too
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27, Macbook Pro 17, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr Fluidr PPG Street Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!

Unlocker

Link Posted 08/04/2011 - 14:34
greynolds999 wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this thread has drifted from helping a newcomer to a pointless fight?

No you're not.

Why Algernon is picking on Frogfish is beyond me.

WebsiteBlogGearTwitterFacebook
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.