09-15-2010, 12:50 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284553976' post='2795']
The C70-200/4 is hardly comparable to the P60-250/4. If so you may also argue that it makes sense to compare it to the Sigma 100-300/4 which has almost the double weight. A reasonable comparison may be the 70-300L which is just as heavy - actually slightly heavier if you don't count the tripod mount of the P lens.
As far as the 55-250IS and 55-300VR is concerned - the valid counterpart is, of course, not the P60-250mm but the P55-300mm which sits in between the C and N lens.
There're a number of Pentax lenses which are not offered by the others.
50-135/2.8
10-17 Fisheye
17-70/4
And, of course, all the DA and DA* primes.
I think there's absolutely no doubt that Pentax has, by far, the best APS-C lineup out there. It's not even a close call. Full format lenses on APS-C DSLRs are always a compromise - at least in terms of size/weight.
[/quote]
How can you say the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM is hardly comparable, when I just now showed just how comparable it is?
The Canon lens is the same size (actually a bit smaller), has comparable tele reach on APS-C, weights less, is weather sealed and offers IS, and it a bit cheaper.
Now what makes it "hardly" comparable? I do not get that! It is comparable in price, weight (advantage Canon), size (advantage Canon), build quality, AF, IQ, aperture, focal range (!!). Just that the less heavy Canon is also usable on full frame.
The other Pentax lenses you mention...
50-135... Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 and Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 are available for both Canon and Nikon APS-C.
10-17mm fisheye... Tokina 10-17mm is available for both Canon and Nikon APS-C.
17-70 f4. Nikon has a very comparable 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR. Canon has a very comparable 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS. If those are not to one's liking, Sigma has a 17-70mm f2.8-4 OS.
So what is left are some of the primes.
The C70-200/4 is hardly comparable to the P60-250/4. If so you may also argue that it makes sense to compare it to the Sigma 100-300/4 which has almost the double weight. A reasonable comparison may be the 70-300L which is just as heavy - actually slightly heavier if you don't count the tripod mount of the P lens.
As far as the 55-250IS and 55-300VR is concerned - the valid counterpart is, of course, not the P60-250mm but the P55-300mm which sits in between the C and N lens.
There're a number of Pentax lenses which are not offered by the others.
50-135/2.8
10-17 Fisheye
17-70/4
And, of course, all the DA and DA* primes.
I think there's absolutely no doubt that Pentax has, by far, the best APS-C lineup out there. It's not even a close call. Full format lenses on APS-C DSLRs are always a compromise - at least in terms of size/weight.
[/quote]
How can you say the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM is hardly comparable, when I just now showed just how comparable it is?
The Canon lens is the same size (actually a bit smaller), has comparable tele reach on APS-C, weights less, is weather sealed and offers IS, and it a bit cheaper.
Now what makes it "hardly" comparable? I do not get that! It is comparable in price, weight (advantage Canon), size (advantage Canon), build quality, AF, IQ, aperture, focal range (!!). Just that the less heavy Canon is also usable on full frame.
The other Pentax lenses you mention...
50-135... Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 and Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 are available for both Canon and Nikon APS-C.
10-17mm fisheye... Tokina 10-17mm is available for both Canon and Nikon APS-C.
17-70 f4. Nikon has a very comparable 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR. Canon has a very comparable 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS. If those are not to one's liking, Sigma has a 17-70mm f2.8-4 OS.
So what is left are some of the primes.