[Frogfish]

As mentioned by a few here : the SR built into your Kx is worth at least a stop or two whereas with Nikon you aren't going to get that until you start buying the very expensive VR lenses. In other words more flexibility, better in low light and you can get away with slower (and less expensive) lenses than you will be able to in the Nikon range. Most of these were factors (not the low light) in my choosing a K7 over the D90.

Just a comment on these two lenses you mentioned :
3. AF Nikkor 85/1.8D - $440
4. AF Nikkor 60 macro - $440

60mm isn't the best FL for a macro unless you are using it for products - the 90/100/105 range is generally considered much better for bugs etc. if that is what you want it for.

If that is the case I would take the Tamron 90 Di macro to replace those two lenses on your list - yes at 2.8 it is slower (but you'll get that stop and more back with the Kx's in-body SR) but it is still a superb long portrait lense with a gorgeous bokeh, and a fantastic macro lense (it's prime purpose) into the bargain, an incredibly sharp lens - two birds with one stone and you've just saved yourself $400 to put towards some DA* or Ltd lenses !

EDIT : I should also mention legacy glass too since you may well get into this later, especially since you seem to prefer primes. There is some fantastic glass out there - covering everything in your range - the A or M Pentax glass or a whole world of lenses in M42 mounts. Some of them are just giveaways they are so cheap but perform so well.

---

Last edited by Frogfish; 09-17-2010 at 12:04 PM.

[vsl3-e]

Wow. So many replies thanks...but after reading all your comments, i am none wiser.

I know this is a pentax forum but would you guys objectively agree (or disagree) that the system to go for (if i am only interested in prime lenses) is with Pentax and not Nikon?

The features of the K-x is plenty for me plus i am a female with small build. Dont want a big camera that will snap my wrist.

to be precise, to fully use those Nikon prime lenses you listed (which are very nice indeed) you need to buy a Nikon body with an autofocus motor. The cheapest one would be a D90, or its successor the D7000. I had the privilege of playing around with the D90, and it is a really nice camera, albeit a pricey one. As the previous posters mentioned, it really is a matter of you going into the shop and trying the camera out and then comparing the cost D90 + some Nikon prime lenses, or kx + some Pentax prime lenses. You must also consider the Nikon lenses are not stabilised, so more low light shooting potential with the Pentax.
my 2c

[deadwolfbones]

60mm isn't the best FL for a macro unless you are using it for products - the 90/100/105 range is generally considered much better for bugs etc. if that is what you want it for.

60mm on APS-C is equivalent to 90mm on full-frame, so the Nikon (and Tamron) 60mm macros (or "micros," as Nikon would have it) are the modern equivalent of those old classic 90-100mm macros from Kiron, etc.

[Frogfish]

60mm on APS-C is equivalent to 90mm on full-frame, so the Nikon (and Tamron) 60mm macros (or "micros," as Nikon would have it) are the modern equivalent of those old classic 90-100mm macros from Kiron, etc.

True. But the extra length gives a more workable distance often required for jittery bugs. Which is why the Tamron / Vivitar / Sigma / Pentax longer macros are more popular than the shorter macros.

[deadwolfbones]

True. But the extra length gives a more workable distance often required for jittery bugs. Which is why the Tamron / Vivitar / Sigma / Pentax longer macros are more popular than the shorter macros.

What I meant to say is that in the film days, 90mm was considered to be pretty standard for a macro lens. Today we use those 90mm lenses on a 1.5x crop digital body, which makes them 135mm equivalents. So while we've gotten used to those dSLR-based working distances, film pros found 90mm to be just fine. The 60mm macro lenses are the modern-day equivalent of what those pros used.

[Frogfish]

Ah but today insects are far more skittish, than in those film days, since there are far more photographers poking lenses into their lives

[jsherman999]

Hi,

Would like some feedback from you guys.

I am still trying to get some new prime lens for my setup and come across the nikon range:

1. AF Nikkor 28/2.8D - $260 at BHP
2. AF Nikkor 50/1.4D - $330
3. AF Nikkor 85/1.8D - $440
4. AF Nikkor 60 macro - $440

I use a pentax k-x but dont have any prime lens at the moment. I have been wondering what are the differences between

1. nikkor 28mm vs pentax 35 macro. i know pentax dont produce 28mm now and the FA35 has stopped production. 35mm LTD is the closest to this focal length and has macro.

The Nikon is wider, but other than that, there is no real way to say that the Nikon 28 is anything but inferior. I have the 35 and have had the 28, but sold the 28 when I realized my Tamron 17-50 was much better. The DA 35ltd is in a separate class.

And as noted, the new 35 f/2.4 is going to be available very soon.

2. nikkor 50 vs pentax FA50.

No real difference, and I think the Pentax 50 1.4 is better. The Nikon 50 1,4G (not D) is an updated version, and is really pretty good. I own the 50 1.8, bought new for $109, and use it all the time - very good little lens for the money, very sharp, but bokeh's nothing special.

3. 85mm - no pentax equivalent now except the costly FA85 which is beyond my pay bracket.

No AF Pentax 85mm in this price range, but there is the 77ltd, which is cheaper/smaller than the Pentax FA 85 1.4, and which is a step above this Nikon 85 1.8. The 85 1.8 is a pretty good lens, though, and on the D90/D7000/D300/D700, it will focus very fast in low light.

The M 85 f2, as noted up in the thread, is exceptional, but MF.

Note that to have the 85 1.8D, 28 2.8D and 50 1.4D be AF, you'll need at least a D90 body, as those lenses do not have a motor.


.

[axl]

Hi,

Would like some feedback from you guys.

I am still trying to get some new prime lens for my setup and come across the nikon range:

1. AF Nikkor 28/2.8D - $260 at BHP
2. AF Nikkor 50/1.4D - $330
3. AF Nikkor 85/1.8D - $440
4. AF Nikkor 60 macro - $440

I use a pentax k-x but dont have any prime lens at the moment. I have been wondering what are the differences between

1. nikkor 28mm vs pentax 35 macro. i know pentax dont produce 28mm now and the FA35 has stopped production. 35mm LTD is the closest to this focal length and has macro.

2. nikkor 50 vs pentax FA50.

3. 85mm - no pentax equivalent now except the costly FA85 which is beyond my pay bracket.

And in addition, it appears that the nikkor range is more affordable than the pentax equivalent.

What do u guys think? are the nikon range better for a setup? I have very minimum pentax investment at the moment...not too sure i should switch to nikon though.

Appreciate your comments.

ladybug.

I was thinking of jumping to Nikon several times. But got lucky...
As you see, my setup is
31/43/50/77

Pretty much covering all you wanted, less macro that I don't need anyway, and optically above (or at least at the same level as Nikon's top dogs) pretty much anything Nikon can put against it...

[northcoastgreg]

Hi,

1. nikkor 28mm vs pentax 35 macro. i know pentax dont produce 28mm now and the FA35 has stopped production. 35mm LTD is the closest to this focal length and has macro.

2. nikkor 50 vs pentax FA50.

3. 85mm - no pentax equivalent now except the costly FA85 which is beyond my pay bracket.

1. It is not fair to compare the Nikkor 28 with the Pentax 35 macro. From what I have heard, the Nikkor 28 is one of the least inspired of Nikon's wide angle primes, whereas the Pentax 35 macro may be the best APS-C lens ever made.

2. Nearly everyone makes very good 50s, so I doubt there'd be much difference between the two lenses. I have heard from people in a position to know that the Pentax 50 is marginally better than the Nikkor, but I doubt the difference is enough to bother about.

3. With the DA 70, the FA 77, and the DFA 100, Pentax has decided that it doesn't need an 85mm lens. At $440, the Nikkor 85 (which by all accounts is a very nice lens) may be a compelling reason to switch.

Despite the Nikkor 85, I would advise against switching for several reasons. First, although Nikon's professional glass is generally superb (but very pricey), their non-professional glass is something of a mixed bag. There's some nice lenses like the 85 1.8 and the 50 1.8, but there are also mediocre optics like the 28. Worse, many of these lenses don't autofocus on Nikon's entry level cameras, so you have to pay a surcharge to get AF with them. That renders Nikon a not very good option for the budget conscious photographer.

[ladybug]

Thank you very much for all your comments. Appreciated.

Yes. I am aware of the lack of SR on nikon's bodies but i just thought with the high ISO capabilities of new cameras nowadays, the high iso can compensate somewhat (i know it is not the same) the lack of SR. I have been looking at one of the threads re. the D7000 in the news and rumors forum and must say the D7000 is looking extremely attractive.

That again, i feel that it is not a good idea to switch just because someone else produced a good body in every 2 years or so...as some body in this forum rightly said, it is the lenses that matters. I take that comment to heart.

This is the reason why i am into primes (i m moving from the kit zooms) and i wanted to get a couple of primes which i hope can last me at least another 3-4 camera upgrade cycles before something else happens.

Now back to my question this time. could you please tell me which of the prime lenses i should really be looking into for my setup? i know the answer will vary based on shooting style, personal preference, etc...but i just want to have a feel what kind of lenses i should at least be comparing against the nikon range.

For instance, i know i want:

1. DA15 - the ultimate wide angle and small one too. i have checked nikon's 14mm is a monster and would prolly cost my liver to buy as well. So the DA15 is a no brainer.

2. a 28mm lens. not sure if i should look into DA21 or a DA35/2.4 (the new lens) or the DA35 Ltd. But the DA35 Ltd is looking really good. u guys should stop all those thread like "the DA35 is the greatest lens ever". I think this affect my judgment somewhat j/k

3. a 50mm. Some suggest a FA43....or should i be looking at the DA40?

4. a portrait lens. ideally i want a 85mm but as someone also said, the FA77 is even nicer and the DA70 is just as good. So what is it? the FA77 or the DA70?

If i had plenty of cash, i will just buy all the pancake lenses from pentax but this is not going to happen. Comments appreciated.

[Steinback]

The A 28mm f/2.8, F 28mm f/2.8, FA 28mm f/2.8, and FA 35mm f/2 are all second hand options in the 28mm to 35mm range that might be worth comparing to the new DA-L 35mm once it is out.

The A lens is manual focus but under $100, the F and FA 28s are running closer to $200 to $250 at the moment, and the FA 35mm is somewhere around $400. The Sigma 28mm f/1.8 seems to be around $350 new (I was seriously considering one before finding a ridiculously inexpensive FA 28mm).

Last year this time I would have suggested an F or FA 50mm f/1.7 but the prices have nearly doubled on the used market since then. The manual focus A 50mm f/1.7 (and to a lesser extent the A 50mm f/1.4) are still reasonably affordable. At under $300 used I still think that the FA 50mm f/1.4 is a good value.

There are also several macro lenses available from Pentax, Tamron and Sigma in the 70 to 105mm range at f/2.8 that are well regarded and that could be used for both macro and portrait work. At around $400 with rebates the Tamron 90mm is significantly less expensive than the DA 70 or FA 77.

A combination along the lines of Sigma 28mm f/1.8 (~350), Pentax FA 50mm (~360), Tamron 90mm (~410) would come to about $1120 US before shipping and tax (compared to the 3 Pentax pancakes at ~$1400+). Another option would be to cover the wide to moderate or moderate to short telephoto range with f/2.8 zoom lenses to save some money.

I've tended to go with old manual lenses that have excellent image quality but limited automation for much of my lens lineup in order to keep costs low, however if you must have autofocus that isn't really an option for you. My low cost lineup looks something like: A 28mm f/2.8 ($80), Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 (Under $60), Super Takumar 105mm f/2.8 (Under $60), 2 screwmount adaptors ($50), M42 bellows ($40). I've added autofocus lenses around those as money allows.

[Pentaxor]

Hi,

Would like some feedback from you guys.

I am still trying to get some new prime lens for my setup and come across the nikon range:

1. AF Nikkor 28/2.8D - $260 at BHP
2. AF Nikkor 50/1.4D - $330
3. AF Nikkor 85/1.8D - $440
4. AF Nikkor 60 macro - $440

I use a pentax k-x but dont have any prime lens at the moment. I have been wondering what are the differences between

1. nikkor 28mm vs pentax 35 macro. i know pentax dont produce 28mm now and the FA35 has stopped production. 35mm LTD is the closest to this focal length and has macro.

2. nikkor 50 vs pentax FA50.

3. 85mm - no pentax equivalent now except the costly FA85 which is beyond my pay bracket.

And in addition, it appears that the nikkor range is more affordable than the pentax equivalent.

What do u guys think? are the nikon range better for a setup? I have very minimum pentax investment at the moment...not too sure i should switch to nikon though.

Appreciate your comments.

ladybug.

Hi, I can make you decide much easier by recommending some excellent Pentax lenses.

first, this is basing from your preference for affordable AF lenses.

1.> DA35 for $550. sharper than 28/2.8 and eliminates the need for a 60mm macro. saves you around $200 for both Nikon lenses.
2.> FA35 for $400 used. faster than the 28mm and wider than the 50mm. you might use this more often than the 50mm. saves you around $200 for both Nikon lenses.
3> DA70 for $500-$550. a 100 bucks more than the Nikon, but what can you do? although it's wider.


now if you don't mind practicing or developing skills, there are a lot of cheaper and outstanding lenses in this area.

1.> SMC 28/3.5 - this lens is awesome and would save you a $100-$150.
2.> Super Tak 50/1.4 for $50. awesome lens.
3.> A 50/2.8 Macro for $100-$150. awesome macro lens. believe me, you will do a lot more manual focusing when doing macro shots.
4.> M85/2 for $200. magnificent lens and you will surely love this. it has that Pentax magic.

[Clicker]

I was thinking of jumping to Nikon several times. But got lucky...
As you see, my setup is
31/43/50/77

Pretty much covering all you wanted, less macro that I don't need anyway, and optically above (or at least at the same level as Nikon's top dogs) pretty much anything Nikon can put against it...

You just need to add extension tubes or a rail and voilà mini monsters

[RioRico]

You should buy a Nikon system. Everybody with a Canon or Sony or Olympus should buy Nikon too. Why? Because Nikon has the longest register (lens-mount-to-register-distance) of all the major brands. Long-register lenses can be mounted on short-register cameras, but not vice versa, not and retain infinity focus. That means you can't mount Pentax-compatible glass on your new Nikon camera, so you'll have to buy Nikon-compatible lenses. THAT LEAVES MORE OLD PENTAX LENSES FOR THE REST OF US!! Please have pity on our LBA, huh?

You know, I love Pentax and I will probably never ever leave, but I just don't see a reason for anyone to get into Pentax at the moment, unless you want to go medium format. Will see what K-5 will bring, but I am not holding my breath.