>From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland & Alan, why are we using Pentax?????? Doesn't sound like a good system to buy into, and even long-time PDMLer's are making arguements against it.
For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on my manual Pentax stuff slowly. I'd rather put my $$$ in film, trips, and marketing my work than a new system that may not improve my photography hugely (though this will change I'm sure). Any thoughts? --- Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >But Pentax has had 28-105's for a long time. > >FA 28-105 f/4-5.6, 28-105 f/4-5.6 (IF) and now the > f/3.2-4.5. > >I don't understand you here. > > Aside from some Tamron rebadged zooms, the choice of > true Pentax FA zooms > are quite limited when compared to C, N & M. They > have many good quality > consumer zooms (I don't mean those truely low > quality lenses), but Pentax > was stuck with FA28-105/4.5-5.6, and now the > FA20-35/4 & FA24-90/3.5-4.5. > Still, the choice is rather limited. > > >My FA 135 f/2.8 is built like a tank, I'm sure that > it can stand the attack > >of missiles. It's a full metal construction. I also > like the build quality > >of my FA 28 f/2.8 and FA 50 f/1.7. They feels very > solid with great > >mechanics. I like the build quality of my FA 28-105 > f/3.2-4.5. It's much > >more solid than my FA 28-70 f/4 was. So, FA lenses > are *not* cheaply built > >- except from some consumer zooms. > > I can assure you the FA135/2.8 was not built like a > tank. The focus ring > feels truely bad, so to the FA100/2.8. These lenses > have metal shells and > quite ok, but it's no Nikkor AF lenses (similar > lenses). > > >The FA* 80-200 f/2.8 is more expensive than the > competition, but the other > >lenses are not. In fact, some are even less > expensive. The FA* 28-70 f/2.8 > >is the least expensive 28-70 f/2.8 on the market > from a major manufacturer, > >and the FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL (IF) is less > expensive than Nikon AF 28-105 > >f/3.5-4.5. The 50 f/1.4 is the least expensive 50 > f/1.4 on the market, same > >with is true for the legendary FA 100 f/2.8 > Macro.Well, they were when I > >checked Cyberphoto (http//www.cyberphoto.se). > > If I remember correctly, most FA* lenses were more > expensive than Nikkor AF > and similar to EOS equivalent. The FA*80-200 and > FA*28-70 were selling like > US$16xx & US$12xx respectively. The FA*200/2.8 > costed US$12xx too. The only > truely affordable * lens was FA*24/2, and the FA*85 > & FA*300/4.5 were > selling at US$8xx. If you take into the account that > EOS lenses had much > better AF ability, the FA* lenses were overpriced > indeed. Some of these > lenses are cheaper these days, but at the same time, > every manufacturers > have moved forward and produced updated versions > while Pentax is still > selling the new old stocks at the lower but still > not quite competitive > price tags. > > >But the entry level lenses are very plastic with no > distance information > >scale. Canon even has plastic prime lenses with > plastic lens mounts (like > >the 50 f/1.8). Now, all Pentax prime lenses has > higher quality than that. > > But one EF50/1.8 doesn't represent the whole system. > In fact, this 50mm is > the only poorly built prime lens in the whole EOS > line. > > >this has never happened to any of my MZ-bodies. > > Because the whole thing is plastic, except the > mount. They are ok for so > long as you don't mount some rather heavy lenses on > it and handle it rough. > For heavy lenses, Z-1, Z-1p & MZ-S are the only > choices. > > >The more I use my MZ-5n, the more I like it. It's a > beautiful camera. > > A well designed camera, but not without its own > problem. > > regards, > Alan Chan > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months > FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
