new mount should read "new modern lens mount" and "nice condition 300mm
A*" should read
"... 300mm A* f4.0". Sheesh, I should read these things before I hit send.
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:
>
>
>
>>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
