Why are these old telephoto lenses with the weird barrel focus/zoom

File: IMGP3287.jpg (645KB, 1809x1348px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 1809x1348px

>that feel when you can shoot just about anything on a Pentax-M f4 200mm

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3 II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	300 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:13 23:27:46
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

They aren't, or at least you're confusing the zoom mechanism with quality. The reality is, f/4 lenses are always going to be amazing. Slow lenses are always going to be the best in their class because fast lenses are always a compromise between refraction and correction. Slow lenses don't suffer from that duality, and are able to concentrate on a single variable (sharpness and optical quality).

It's like that old chinese proverb: "chase two rabbits, catch neither."

Those lenses are a fucking joke

Like please, never take pictures again

>>2911963
Slow night aye boss? >>2911962

They are basically the precursor to modern 70-200 2.8s. some are shit and cheap, others are damn good at quickly zooming and focusing.

>>2911686
>no autofocus

shit

File: 1471863961594.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>2912418

File: TokinaEF100-300FrontSide.jpg (123KB, 1023x639px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1023x639px

Push-pull zooms are fucking awesome, OP. I've got a Kiron 28-210 and a Tokina 100-300 f4 and in terms of speed and usability they're the bee's fucking knees. I shot airshows, wildlife, and sports events with the latter and had little trouble manually focusing since I could spin it into focus while zooming. 2-touch zooms can floss their filthy mouths with my ballhairs.

>>2911686
I have the vivitar series one and tamron sp, they fucking suck next to my Canon 70-200 f4 L, the Canon was only 200 quid.

>f4
>good

File: pentax15mm.png (66KB, 1118x517px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1118x517px

>>2911734
>Slow lenses don't suffer from that duality, and are able to concentrate on a single variable (sharpness and optical quality).

Well, sometimes they concentrate on some other variable, like compactness, price or build quality.

>>2912477
The Pentax actually needs to be at about f/6.7 for this to be a fair comparison iirc. Not that the 15mm is a sharp lens, because it's not.

>>2912477
what tool is this?

>>2912477
>tfw have pentax system
>really want around 15mm on crop
>pretty much only option is that lens

should I just go fuji already

File: mtf[1].png (21KB, 499x376px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 499x376px

>>2912477
Not that you really should compare lenses directly across different bodies/systems.

>>2912734
The Pentax 14mm 2.8 is really good. Not as good as the Fuji 14mm but it costs 1/3 as much.

>>2912748
I'd probably save myself the headache and get the 18mm f2 instead though. It seems like an overall nicer lens and I would barely notice the tighter fov but even if I didn't do that it just looks like the 14mm 2.8 fuji lens is better for not even that much more

There's just so many decent looking choices so it'd be easier to pick and choose depending on my needs instead of either one of these two lenses

>>2912733
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare?lensId=nikon_70-200_2p8_vrii&cameraId=nikon_d800

lrn2google

File: 1441937448299.webm (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>Using my trusty dust pump at an air show
>Somehow a pebble gets on the bare side of the zoom
>Scratches the fuck out of the lens
>Just barely prevent it from getting inside the housing of the lens

I mean it's fun to use and useful for going from 100 to 400 instantly but shit like that is why they suck.

>>2912751
>and I would barely notice the tighter fov
Do not underestimate the difference 4mm can make. I bought the Samyang 14mm after having used some shitty 18-125mm kit lens, and was blown away by how much wider the Samyang was.

>>2913021
this

the wider you get, the more noticeable a 1mm change in focal length is

>>2913021
>>2913024
Yeah, especially on crop, where 14 vs 18 is like 21 vs 27.

>>2912990
>dat shamefur dispray reaction from red jacket

>>2911686
When I first picked up photography, these were my first lenses and I fucking despise them
Also all of them had some dumb fucking shaped aperture, either from poor manufacturing or damage
Always had a fucking egg shape to the aperture

>>2912450

always someone with a brain in every thread