On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:03:50 +0100, you wrote: Those are some pretty good comparisons, Roland, but I want to comment in part: > >Canon EF 200 f/2.8L : 9 660 SEK >Nikon AF 180 f/2.8D : 10 973 SEK >Pentax FA* 200 f/2.8 : 13 545 SEK >Pentax A* 200 f/2.8 : 13 568 SEK > >Comment: All those are pro-quality. Canon is the least expensive, Pentax the >most expensive. Nikon really doesn't fit in here since it has 180 and not >200.
Oh - that Nikon 180 is just the best short 200mm lens on planet earth... Noisy, though. > >Canon EF 300 f/2.8L IS : 58 624 SEK >Canon EF 300 f/4 IS : 17 175 SEK >Nikon AF 300 f/4D : 13 850 SEK >Pentax FA* 300 f/2.8 : 45 644 SEK >Pentax FA* 300 f/4.5 : 9 126 SEK > >Comment: Pentax has the least expensive options here. ...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.) Face it - at 300mm, Pentax is so far behind it is laughable. They can't even compare with a five year old Sigma 300/4 APO Macro in terms of features and value for money. The last good 300mm from Pentax was the F* 300/4.5. >Canon EF 400 f/2.8L IS : 95 725 SEK >Canon EF 400 f/5.6L : 20 160 SEK >Nikon AF 400 f/2.8D :107 730 SEK >Pentax FA* 400 f/5.6 ED : 15 316 SEK > >Comment: Pentax has the least expensive options here, Nikon is the most >expensive. (Nikon's lens cost as a Citro�n C3 1.4 with SX and comfort pack. >I definately takes the Citro�n over the Nikon! :-) ). Pentax lacks a 400 >f/2.8, but I guess that the market isn't there... 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. But comparing any 400/5.6 to a 400/2.8 is silly, silly, silly. They are very different animals intended for a very different market. > >Canon EF 500 f/4 L IS : 84 000 SEK >Nikon AF 500 f/4D : 94 763 SEK >Canon EF 600L IS :103 770 SEK >Nikon AF 600 f/4 :119 700 SEK >Pentax FA* 600 f/5.6 : 58 874 SEK > >Comment: Pentax does not have a 500 lens, but since the 600 cost less than >the 500's from the competition - it's not needed at all. Buy a Pentax 600 >instead of a 500 from the competition, and for the difference in price - you >can buy a *ist D! This comparison had a lot of truth in the days before IS in the Canon lenses. Even today, if the *istD and a flagship comes out with very good AF, the Pentax FA* 600/4 even without USM and IS becomes a very good option for big glass... at least for those who don't care about Pentax brand AF teleconverters or extension tubes. Let's face it - Canon has all the goods in pro quality lenses and accessories. Pentax can do 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. The will pass Pentax quickly if Nikon continues to introduce VR and AFS lenses and Pentax continues without these features. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
