I don't know about you guys. But I've got far more invested in lenses, than in (DSLR) bodies. Being able to keep using these lenses was kinda improtant to me. So I got Pentax DSLR's (two at the moment). Except for the speed issue, they are just great. I just wich Pentax would come out with a 5 FPS body. The new Nikon does 17 RAW shots in a row - and 5 FPS. Way to go! Regards
Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey DiGiorgi Sendt: 15. juli 2006 21:25 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Backwards Compatibility That's funny, I bought my brand new Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS for $1095.00 in 2003. And sold it for $980 in 2005. It's one of the very best 300mm lenses I've ever worked with, but it's way too long for what I need. I didn't say that there was no value to the backwards compatibility. But such lenses are relative niche need compared to what one uses with a DSLR most of the time (focal lengths from 16 to 135mm). That's not what most people need or want. G On Jul 15, 2006, at 9:22 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: > I beg to differ, if you're willing to manually focus then there are a > huge number of specialty lenses available which would cost an arm and > two legs if you bought them new mount, or even used in Canon eos > mount. > Anyone wanting longer telephotos would be crazy not to take that into > account. For example on the used market.you can pick up a nice > condition 300mm A* for for less than $350, an M* for less than > that. The > Canon L 300 IS USM f4 is a cool $2K. The Non IS version of the Canon > lens seems to go for $1200-1500. on the used market. If you want a > new > Pentax 300 mm you have to get the f2.8 with a street price somewhere > north of $2K as the the f4.5 seems to be discontinued which usually > sells for two to four times what the A* f4 sells for used. Even third > party glass prices are stratospheric. If you're on a budget then > being > able to use older lenses is a huge difference. > > Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > >> As much as it is a nice feature, it's mostly irrelevant if you don't >> already own a lot of older Pentax lenses. >> >> When I bought my DS, I bought a bunch of A and M series lenses to >> figure out what I really wanted. One by one, I've sold them off as I >> bought the current, latest series lens in the focal lengths I wanted. >> You only get all the features of the body with the latest series >> lenses (F, FA, DA) and I didn't see anything so special about, say, >> the A50/1.4 that the FA50/1.4 doesn't provide, and the FA model >> provides more. >> >> I can see buying older lenses like this as a way to get a good lens >> that you can't afford a new one of, but overall the new lenses in the >> latest series outperform the older ones. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/389 - Release Date: 07/14/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/389 - Release Date: 07/14/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
