Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: > Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> So, if wide angles lenses are so important to you, and Pentax doesn't seem >> to make an acceptable w/a, why are you using Pentax gear? > > I bought into the system at a time when extreme wide-angle lenses > weren't necessary. The 2.8/28 mm was the shortest Pentax lens I've ever > used on analog Pentax bodies. While not a stellar performer, I found it > to be acceptable for my purposes. > > Then, I inherited a complete Contarex system which I've been very happy > with for a number of years until service became practically > unaffordable. > > Faced with the need to look for an alternative and with a bunch of > Pentax lenses and bodies still in a drawer I bought a second-hand LX and > a new *istDS which, in turn, created the requirement for shorter focal > lengths. Bought the 15 mm, a 4.5/21 mm, a 2.8/24 mm, and a 2.8/35 mm on > ebay. > > The 21 mm is fine and I really love it. But the distorsion of the 24 mm > is a shame and I'm still looking for a working 2.8/35 mm after I had to > return the three I've bought so far. > > Besides, I wouldn't expect things to be all peaches and honey with the > other brands either. > > Given the choice, I'd probably go for the new Fuji S5 - if only for the > dynamic range which would be a definite plus for my night stuff - > provided it came with a better viewfinder than its predecessors. > > Ralf >
The S5 body in entirely inherited from the D200. Which has the only viewfinder in the class which is arguably better than a D/DS finder (only arguably though). But the Nikon glass for it isn't any better than the Pentax options, except for the 17-35 f2.8 AF-S which has no real equivalent in Pentax's line. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
