I had to put away the little stack of accessory boxes on my desk, so I figured while I was at it, I might as well photograph all of the Pentax stuff I've bought since I turned 23.
don't be too worried about the boxes - they're nice to have if you decide to resell stuff someday. i try and buy most things with the long-term-keep concept, but hey, things change, and the extra $$ you get for something with original packaging can be nice.
Since Canon runs their sales right after their two big times, and they run LONG sales, getting a box with anything used is pretty rare on this end of the spectrum, since they've all been cut up. Actually, a huge moneymaker has been people cutting the UPC off, getting the refund, then selling the item as new.
I'm more concerned because I keep random boxes, too, and they accumulate.
The three lens boxes and the DL body box are all missing their UPCs... rebates being what they are. I take care to not destroy things I might need later, though. I did just throw out a bunch of other junk I don't need, at least, and have plans to get rid of more.
Whoop.
$40 isn't much, I must say. I think I got $100 back on the 10-17 and 16-45, $50 on the 50-200. Of course, Canon needs to do less work to convince people to buy...
Canon's rebates generally run around $20-40 for non-professional lenses, and around $40-125 for L series lenses, depending on the individual rebate program. The rebates are generally tied to the price of the item, although some items are shifted to push sales.
Generally speaking, people don't buy Canon lenses because they are on sale, but rather WHEN they are on sale. It isn't really a way of improving new customer sales, so much as driving up existing customer sales. It doesn't hurt that the two rebate periods are generally right when they release new equipment, when the weather gets nicer, and when the holidays are approaching.
By the way, I got a new B&H catalog today, and I was thumbing through the Pentax gear. Their digital lenses are at weird focal lengths. Like the 40-something that works out to be like, a 60mm lens. 60mm? And Olympus is still marketing their lenses as being something totally special because of the 2x crop factor. Sorry guys, but a 300/2 equivilent has probably traded that extra lens speed for loss of DOF, and excessive noise due to the tiny sensor. Seems an odd move backwards when Nikon has just gone full-frame, and Canon now has a ridiculous 21MP full-frame camera.
Yeah, and remember that the Oly 4/3 lenses cost as much as a car.
The pentax focal lengths on the limiteds are the way they've always been on the limiteds - 21/70 are "odd" lengths the same way 31/43/77 were on film. The 40 isn't really an odd length in the grand scheme of things, but it's freaking tiny... a 40 pancake isn't really out of the question for them, as the M 40/2.8 was something that already happened; this time around, though, they don't have to cram the focus ring and aperture ring into the no space.
Most people complain about the zoom range of the 16-45 (not long enough). They also complain that the 12-24 overlaps too much with everything else. Can't say much for the 10-17, as it's special purpose beyond the focal length. The 50-200 apparently sucks at both ends of the range, and people are, for some reason, expecting the upcoming 55-300 to be better. They also think the 17-70 that Pentax is designing will somehow be better than the 16-45 and faster than the 16-50 at half the cost of either.
None of this, of course, addresses the humor of the 60-250/4 and its public affairs.
I still maintain that I haven't had depth of field problems. There are sometimes where my sensitivity and max shutter speed line up such that I get in trouble, but that's a function of the camera more than the sensor size. Adding an ND filter/polarizer and trying again would work just as well as switching formats, or something. I don't know, I try not to worry about it too much and check DOF preview early and often in setting up shots where I think it's going to matter.
One thing's for sure, though - I don't envy the 4/3 crew except in terms of birding. Of course, I've said that before here and been chewed out for it... but the crop factor combined with increased depth of field are both helpful. I'm also envious, however, of anyone that can actually afford good tele lenses for 4/3 cameras.
Well, see that's part of my problem with Olympus. That 150/2 that they tout as better than sliced bread isn't all that revolutionary, and is stupidly expensive. Canon sells the 135/2L for $900, but the Oly lens is several grand!
I don't envy them at all, because they have to put up with stupid pricing, a different aspect ratio, and while their lenses are of high quality, they don't appear all that technologically advanced. It looks like they just rigged up older designs to fit the new mount.
As for birding, Oly can't be all that great, since I don't hear of too many birders using them these days.
I should have done a better job making it apparent that I envy the ability to spend a fortune on lenses, not the fact that the lenses cost a fortune.
The reason most birders probably don't like the cameras is the tiny viewfinders coupled with poor high ISO performance. It's worth reminding you, though, that for the most part, my definition of "bird photography" is "getting a picture that's good enough to identify what I saw." Not as much the "fill the frame with the beauty of the creature" that most people go for.
If getting a picture good enough to identify what you saw is all you need, you might be a good candidate for one of those Pheonix/Opteka/some other fake brand super telephotos that are floating around.
My Opteka 500/8 mirror was crap, but supposedly the 500/8 preset telescope type lens is actually pretty good, and some people like the 620-1200 zoom, too. They aren't high quality, you won't get beautiful images, but you can tell what the heck something is, even if you have to shoot at ISO-1600. They also often come with crummy 2x teleconverters, so a 2400mm lens is actually out there for under $300. The only catch is that it is that it is f/16.
I knew they were eared grebes in the field, because of the binoculars and having preexisting knowledge... but the first shot "proves" it and the second shot shows the amazing quantity. No 600mm lens could have duplicated the second part.
What I keep thinking about doing instead of getting a conventional lens is getting myself a good spotting scope, waterproof and everything, on the off chance that I ever get around to moving out west and want to spend time birding there. It's either that or picking up a 400/5.6 preset or 500/4.5 for around 500 dollars. Only problem with the 500 (aside from the fact that it weighs a ton) is that if you miss the focus, its aberrations rapidly destroy the value of the image - it only has four elements, which isn't much to correct anything.
See, I wish I had your outlook on bird photography. I won't bother to even go birding if I know I can't get fill-the-frame or near that results.
Hence my bird photography for the last few years pretty much consists of: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4158609
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4158611
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3436776
I still can't believe those Downy Woodpecker shots were taken with the same lens as the Opsrey shot, and I especially can't believe that it is a $150 lens, and I doubly especially can't believe that I took them.
The only problem I see with either the sigma or the tamron is the purple fringing... the tamron is supposed to be sharper, but whatever. I'd be really happy with all three of those, but I can see the motivation to find something "better" for the against-the-sky shots.
what's wrong with a 60? the Girl pretty much exclusively shoots a Nikon AF-D 60/2.8 macro on her N80
as for non OEM type long/cheap, we've got an ancient Sigma 600/8 mirror around here in Nikon non-AI mount that, honestly, does a great job. it's not the Canon 400/2.8 a friend used to own, but damn, he paid more for that lens than i paid for my car!
Well, on 35mm, 60 is an odd focal length. It isn't quite a normal lens, and it isn't quite a short portrait lens.
I can understand the purpose of a 60mm (non-macro) lens say, before the introduction of the better quality zoom lenses of the last 15-20yrs, but nowadays, it is an odd focal length for a prime.
As for the Canon 400/2.8, depends somewhat on whether it is the EF or the FD 400/2.8.
The FD 400/2.8 from the 80's weighed 5,395 grams, and had a max body diameter of 166mm. The EF 400/2.8 is a whopping 25 grams LIGHTER than the FD version, weighing in at 5370 grams, and has a max diameter of 163mm.
The 400/2.8 is actually the heaviest of the Canon lenses, beating out the 600/4 by a whopping 10 grams.
Apparently they are popular with race photographers. I suppose since their targets move predicatably, and they set up in advance, the weight isn't as much of an issue.
1) Interesting that the EF is effectively the same weight as the FD...
2) Very interesting that the 400/2.8 is heavier than the 600/4. I'm not an optical engineer, of course, but I would think 400/2.8 would be more physically expensive to correct than 600/4, given access to the same fancy fluorite glass, aspherical elements, etc.
3a) Race photographers? I guess they need the 2.8 for additional shutter speed, but what happens with the depth of field? Do they just hope something interesting happens in the right place at the right time?
3b) I agree... why would a normal person purchase a lens like that?
[B]NZBsRus.com[/B] Skip Crawling Downloads Using NZB Files You Can Instantly Find HD Movies, Console Games, Music, Software & Download Them @ Flying Speeds
Nat,
ReplyDeleteNo, not really. I am concerned that you've kept all those boxes...
I *might* have the box from my 50/1.8 somewhere, but the rest of my lenses were under rebates, so the boxes were sacrificed to save $40.
- Josh
josh -
ReplyDeletedon't be too worried about the boxes - they're nice to have if you decide to resell stuff someday. i try and buy most things with the long-term-keep concept, but hey, things change, and the extra $$ you get for something with original packaging can be nice.
-GMT
GMT,
ReplyDeleteSince Canon runs their sales right after their two big times, and they run LONG sales, getting a box with anything used is pretty rare on this end of the spectrum, since they've all been cut up. Actually, a huge moneymaker has been people cutting the UPC off, getting the refund, then selling the item as new.
I'm more concerned because I keep random boxes, too, and they accumulate.
- Josh
The three lens boxes and the DL body box are all missing their UPCs... rebates being what they are. I take care to not destroy things I might need later, though. I did just throw out a bunch of other junk I don't need, at least, and have plans to get rid of more.
ReplyDeleteWhoop.
$40 isn't much, I must say. I think I got $100 back on the 10-17 and 16-45, $50 on the 50-200. Of course, Canon needs to do less work to convince people to buy...
Nat,
ReplyDeleteCanon's rebates generally run around $20-40 for non-professional lenses, and around $40-125 for L series lenses, depending on the individual rebate program. The rebates are generally tied to the price of the item, although some items are shifted to push sales.
Generally speaking, people don't buy Canon lenses because they are on sale, but rather WHEN they are on sale. It isn't really a way of improving new customer sales, so much as driving up existing customer sales. It doesn't hurt that the two rebate periods are generally right when they release new equipment, when the weather gets nicer, and when the holidays are approaching.
By the way, I got a new B&H catalog today, and I was thumbing through the Pentax gear. Their digital lenses are at weird focal lengths. Like the 40-something that works out to be like, a 60mm lens. 60mm? And Olympus is still marketing their lenses as being something totally special because of the 2x crop factor. Sorry guys, but a 300/2 equivilent has probably traded that extra lens speed for loss of DOF, and excessive noise due to the tiny sensor. Seems an odd move backwards when Nikon has just gone full-frame, and Canon now has a ridiculous 21MP full-frame camera.
- Josh
Yeah, and remember that the Oly 4/3 lenses cost as much as a car.
ReplyDeleteThe pentax focal lengths on the limiteds are the way they've always been on the limiteds - 21/70 are "odd" lengths the same way 31/43/77 were on film. The 40 isn't really an odd length in the grand scheme of things, but it's freaking tiny... a 40 pancake isn't really out of the question for them, as the M 40/2.8 was something that already happened; this time around, though, they don't have to cram the focus ring and aperture ring into the no space.
Most people complain about the zoom range of the 16-45 (not long enough). They also complain that the 12-24 overlaps too much with everything else. Can't say much for the 10-17, as it's special purpose beyond the focal length. The 50-200 apparently sucks at both ends of the range, and people are, for some reason, expecting the upcoming 55-300 to be better. They also think the 17-70 that Pentax is designing will somehow be better than the 16-45 and faster than the 16-50 at half the cost of either.
None of this, of course, addresses the humor of the 60-250/4 and its public affairs.
I still maintain that I haven't had depth of field problems. There are sometimes where my sensitivity and max shutter speed line up such that I get in trouble, but that's a function of the camera more than the sensor size. Adding an ND filter/polarizer and trying again would work just as well as switching formats, or something. I don't know, I try not to worry about it too much and check DOF preview early and often in setting up shots where I think it's going to matter.
One thing's for sure, though - I don't envy the 4/3 crew except in terms of birding. Of course, I've said that before here and been chewed out for it... but the crop factor combined with increased depth of field are both helpful. I'm also envious, however, of anyone that can actually afford good tele lenses for 4/3 cameras.
Eh.
Nat,
ReplyDeleteWell, see that's part of my problem with Olympus. That 150/2 that they tout as better than sliced bread isn't all that revolutionary, and is stupidly expensive. Canon sells the 135/2L for $900, but the Oly lens is several grand!
I don't envy them at all, because they have to put up with stupid pricing, a different aspect ratio, and while their lenses are of high quality, they don't appear all that technologically advanced. It looks like they just rigged up older designs to fit the new mount.
As for birding, Oly can't be all that great, since I don't hear of too many birders using them these days.
- Josh
I should have done a better job making it apparent that I envy the ability to spend a fortune on lenses, not the fact that the lenses cost a fortune.
ReplyDeleteThe reason most birders probably don't like the cameras is the tiny viewfinders coupled with poor high ISO performance. It's worth reminding you, though, that for the most part, my definition of "bird photography" is "getting a picture that's good enough to identify what I saw." Not as much the "fill the frame with the beauty of the creature" that most people go for.
Nat,
ReplyDeleteIf getting a picture good enough to identify what you saw is all you need, you might be a good candidate for one of those Pheonix/Opteka/some other fake brand super telephotos that are floating around.
My Opteka 500/8 mirror was crap, but supposedly the 500/8 preset telescope type lens is actually pretty good, and some people like the 620-1200 zoom, too. They aren't high quality, you won't get beautiful images, but you can tell what the heck something is, even if you have to shoot at ISO-1600. They also often come with crummy 2x teleconverters, so a 2400mm lens is actually out there for under $300. The only catch is that it is that it is f/16.
- Josh
I found an example of "bird photography" per my definition:
ReplyDeleteShot 1 and Shot 2.
I knew they were eared grebes in the field, because of the binoculars and having preexisting knowledge... but the first shot "proves" it and the second shot shows the amazing quantity. No 600mm lens could have duplicated the second part.
What I keep thinking about doing instead of getting a conventional lens is getting myself a good spotting scope, waterproof and everything, on the off chance that I ever get around to moving out west and want to spend time birding there. It's either that or picking up a 400/5.6 preset or 500/4.5 for around 500 dollars. Only problem with the 500 (aside from the fact that it weighs a ton) is that if you miss the focus, its aberrations rapidly destroy the value of the image - it only has four elements, which isn't much to correct anything.
Nat,
ReplyDeleteSee, I wish I had your outlook on bird photography. I won't bother to even go birding if I know I can't get fill-the-frame or near that results.
Hence my bird photography for the last few years pretty much consists of:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4158609
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4158611
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3436776
I still can't believe those Downy Woodpecker shots were taken with the same lens as the Opsrey shot, and I especially can't believe that it is a $150 lens, and I doubly especially can't believe that I took them.
- Josh
Who made your 70-300?
ReplyDeleteThe only problem I see with either the sigma or the tamron is the purple fringing... the tamron is supposed to be sharper, but whatever. I'd be really happy with all three of those, but I can see the motivation to find something "better" for the against-the-sky shots.
Nat,
ReplyDeleteThe purple fringing didn't give it away? It is branded Quantaray (Ritz Camera), but it was made by Sigma.
It is basically identical to the Sigma AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG macro.
It isn't great, but if the conditions aren't harsh, it will usually get the job done.
- Josh
Nat,
ReplyDeleteMy real problem with my 70-300, besides the purple fringing, is how soft it is at 300mm in most conditions, and the AF motor.
- Josh
Most Pentax folks buy the Tamron, but even that is notorious for fringing... hence my lack of "tell."
ReplyDeleteSoftness notwithstanding, if it does the job, it does the job. I can see why hardcore "print my birds at 16x20" people wouldn't accept it, though.
josh -
ReplyDeletewhat's wrong with a 60? the Girl pretty much exclusively shoots a Nikon AF-D 60/2.8 macro on her N80
as for non OEM type long/cheap, we've got an ancient Sigma 600/8 mirror around here in Nikon non-AI mount that, honestly, does a great job. it's not the Canon 400/2.8 a friend used to own, but damn, he paid more for that lens than i paid for my car!
-GMT
400/2.8? Canon mount? Probably weighs about as much as your car, too... 143mm front element, right?
ReplyDeleteGMT,
ReplyDeleteWell, on 35mm, 60 is an odd focal length. It isn't quite a normal lens, and it isn't quite a short portrait lens.
I can understand the purpose of a 60mm (non-macro) lens say, before the introduction of the better quality zoom lenses of the last 15-20yrs, but nowadays, it is an odd focal length for a prime.
As for the Canon 400/2.8, depends somewhat on whether it is the EF or the FD 400/2.8.
The FD 400/2.8 from the 80's weighed 5,395 grams, and had a max body diameter of 166mm. The EF 400/2.8 is a whopping 25 grams LIGHTER than the FD version, weighing in at 5370 grams, and has a max diameter of 163mm.
The 400/2.8 is actually the heaviest of the Canon lenses, beating out the 600/4 by a whopping 10 grams.
Apparently they are popular with race photographers. I suppose since their targets move predicatably, and they set up in advance, the weight isn't as much of an issue.
- Josh
GMT,
ReplyDeleteWhy the heck did he buy a 400/2.8? I'd love to hear what then lens was intended for.
- Josh
1) Interesting that the EF is effectively the same weight as the FD...
ReplyDelete2) Very interesting that the 400/2.8 is heavier than the 600/4. I'm not an optical engineer, of course, but I would think 400/2.8 would be more physically expensive to correct than 600/4, given access to the same fancy fluorite glass, aspherical elements, etc.
3a) Race photographers? I guess they need the 2.8 for additional shutter speed, but what happens with the depth of field? Do they just hope something interesting happens in the right place at the right time?
3b) I agree... why would a normal person purchase a lens like that?
400/2.8 = because he is insane. it was for sports photography, ie, he has friends who have kids on teams. like grade school kids and such.
ReplyDeleteit followed a 300/2.8 Canon, and was followed by a 300/2.8 Nikon, all since sold. Canons were used on a IDS MkII, go figure.
yeah, glass more expensive than my car, still, insane.
-GMT
[B]NZBsRus.com[/B]
ReplyDeleteSkip Crawling Downloads Using NZB Files You Can Instantly Find HD Movies, Console Games, Music, Software & Download Them @ Flying Speeds
[URL=http://www.nzbsrus.com][B]NZB Search[/B][/URL]