09-15-2010, 03:22 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284558538' post='2799']
Yeah, how could I dare ...
[/quote]
At times I just love your tone. But maybe you miss how "how can you" actually is meant In English.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284558538' post='2799']
C70-200 on EF-S = "112-320mm f/6.4" (2.84x)
P60-250 on P = "90-375mm f/5.6" (4.17x) (althouth that's not 100% correct according to the "official" Pentax crop factor)
Now what was your question again ?
[/quote]
That is totally trying way too hard not to have them be similar.
90 and 112mm is very close. 320 and 375mm is even closer.
Now to what I pointed to before: The Pentax is only longer at infinity. When focus closer, the difference disappears, in fact the Canon 70-200 is LONGER focal length wise than the Pentax at MFD.
So, really, saying these lenses can not be considered equivalents is saying the Nikon 24-120mm f4 and Canon 24-105mm f4 are not comparable or the Tamron 90mm f2.8 is not in the same class as the Nikon 105mm f2.8. And of course the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 gets compared with 24-70mm f2.8's.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284558538' post='2799']
Right, thank you for the confirmation than none of these are available from the original manufacturers.
[/quote]
You never wrote before, though. It was (or seemed to be) why you preferred the Pentax K5 out of the new cameras, and part of that was (seemed to be) the availability of a bigger APS-C range of lenses. Well, most of those lenses (equivalents) are available from either Canon or Nikon, or from Sigma and Tokina, for the Canon and Nikon APS-C DSLRs. Except an f4 tele zoom for Nikon and most DA primes.
And concerning APS-C lens size and weight... I already pointed out that the Pentax 60-250mm f4 is bigger and heavier than the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM counterpart. Other lenses also show us that that not always is true (compare the Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX to the Canon and Nikon 35mm f2, for instance, or the different higher end Olympus lenses to APS-C/FF equivalent lenses.
Yeah, how could I dare ...
[/quote]
At times I just love your tone. But maybe you miss how "how can you" actually is meant In English.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284558538' post='2799']
C70-200 on EF-S = "112-320mm f/6.4" (2.84x)
P60-250 on P = "90-375mm f/5.6" (4.17x) (althouth that's not 100% correct according to the "official" Pentax crop factor)
Now what was your question again ?
[/quote]
That is totally trying way too hard not to have them be similar.
90 and 112mm is very close. 320 and 375mm is even closer.
Now to what I pointed to before: The Pentax is only longer at infinity. When focus closer, the difference disappears, in fact the Canon 70-200 is LONGER focal length wise than the Pentax at MFD.
So, really, saying these lenses can not be considered equivalents is saying the Nikon 24-120mm f4 and Canon 24-105mm f4 are not comparable or the Tamron 90mm f2.8 is not in the same class as the Nikon 105mm f2.8. And of course the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 gets compared with 24-70mm f2.8's.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284558538' post='2799']
Right, thank you for the confirmation than none of these are available from the original manufacturers.
[/quote]
You never wrote before, though. It was (or seemed to be) why you preferred the Pentax K5 out of the new cameras, and part of that was (seemed to be) the availability of a bigger APS-C range of lenses. Well, most of those lenses (equivalents) are available from either Canon or Nikon, or from Sigma and Tokina, for the Canon and Nikon APS-C DSLRs. Except an f4 tele zoom for Nikon and most DA primes.
And concerning APS-C lens size and weight... I already pointed out that the Pentax 60-250mm f4 is bigger and heavier than the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM counterpart. Other lenses also show us that that not always is true (compare the Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX to the Canon and Nikon 35mm f2, for instance, or the different higher end Olympus lenses to APS-C/FF equivalent lenses.