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:
>Coming in late on this, I didn't read the thread as there's just too
>much...
>
>On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Jens Bladt wrote:
>
>
>
>>At a camera club night a younger meber (using a analog Canon 90 -
>>something)
>>was looking at all the DSLR's - aiming to choose/buy one.
>>He liked the Pentax, it felt good to the hands, he thought.
>>I told him about the backwards comaptibility - how he could use 50
>>year old
>>lenses, with certain limitations to functionlity.
>>
>>
>
>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.
>
>
>
>>A member with a Canon 20D said "Oh, Canon's can do that too". So, they
>>decised to try it right away.
>>The test came to a very quick stop, as it was not possible to even
>>mount the
>>old Canon lens on the 20D body ;-)
>>
>>
>
>This again? Sheesh. It works with an adapter, if you can find one.
>You need an adapter to fit M42 lenses to the Pentax DSLRs too. So
>Pentax direct lens compatibility goes back to 1971 where Canon goes
>back to 1984 or something like that. A good thing is that the Pentax
>adapters are easy to find and do not need to have any optics in them.
>
>But there's no point ... Better to think of it that the EF series EOS
>lenses fit all the EOS series Canons, the FD series do not, and the
>EF series lenses provide all functions on all EOS series bodies. The
>FL/FD series lenses fit the Canon FL/FD bodies. Canon switched over
>22 years ago or something like that. Canon owners with a big
>investment in FL/FD lenses whine about it all the time still. The
>only 'hiccup' in Canon EOS lens compatibility is the introduction of
>EF-S series lenses for the small sensor bodies.
>
>For whatever it's worth, the lens mount change was one of the things
>that gave Canon an advantage in their body designs since. The EOS
>mount is larger and wider, allowing more freedom in optical design,
>and has state of the art camera to lens communications couplings.
>
>Godfrey
>
>
>
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
