Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-17-2010, 08:56 PM   #31
Veteran Member
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 836
QuoteOriginally posted by ladybug Quote
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.
If you're counting on the ISO for fighting motion blur, then again, you're better off with Pentax. You get as good high ISO performance (same Sony sensors, the K-x performed surprisingly well at high ISO on dpreview, and there's no reason the new models will be worse) *and* you still have the SR. The D7000 has an upper hand on many things compared to Pentax bodies, but depending on high ISO alone instead of paired with SR doesn't sound like good business IMHO.

Check this K-r high ISO samples from another thread. This is ISO 12800:

http://images.quesabesde.com/camaras_digitales/noticias/pentax_k-r_imgp1201.jpg

QuoteQuote:
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.
That's how I think too. A pricey body today is not bleeding edge anymore 1 year from now. Lenses last forever with the same image. So buying bodies is cost, as it's price go down quickly, whereas buying lenses is investment.


Last edited by hcarvalhoalves; 09-17-2010 at 09:08 PM.
09-17-2010, 09:38 PM   #32
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 208
QuoteOriginally posted by ladybug Quote
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.
In your original post, you mention the focal lengths 28/50/85/60 macro. For those interests, my suggestions would be:


[Edit: this was a draft posted by accident; see the full posting below.]

Last edited by Impartial; 09-17-2010 at 10:55 PM.
09-17-2010, 09:53 PM   #33
Junior Member
ladybug's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 38
Original Poster
Thank you all again.

I wanted to clarify some of my preferences.

I am not into legacy lenses so those older SMC, Takumar, etc won't make much difference to me unless they are auto focus which they aren't. Having said this, i can appreciate they are great glass just not what i am looking for.

I also would like to stick with pentax lenses for the time being as one of you once said (i cant remember who now) that why stick with pentax if not for the glass? while i feel this is a rather harsh way of him putting it, i do agree that that should be one of the motivation to stick with pentax. And while i also recognize that the tamron 90 and sigma 105 and sigma 35/1.4 are all great lenses, i will prolly like to stick with pentax glass for now.

I am not really into bugs and the like for macros...more like flowers. i am thinking if i do get the 35 ltd macro, i save myself a 35 lens, just as one post suggested and i think this makes a lot of sense too.

And please dont ask me to go straight to nikon at this stage as i started with the k-x and am extremely happy with it so far...this is not a troll post so pls dont think i am starting one thread to compare the pentax vs nikon for the sake of enjoying the flames. I really want to know what i should get for my setup. I do not know who else to ask these questions.
09-17-2010, 10:18 PM   #34
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by ladybug Quote
Thank you all again.

I wanted to clarify some of my preferences.

I am not into legacy lenses so those older SMC, Takumar, etc won't make much difference to me unless they are auto focus which they aren't. Having said this, i can appreciate they are great glass just not what i am looking for.

I also would like to stick with pentax lenses for the time being as one of you once said (i cant remember who now) that why stick with pentax if not for the glass? while i feel this is a rather harsh way of him putting it, i do agree that that should be one of the motivation to stick with pentax. And while i also recognize that the tamron 90 and sigma 105 and sigma 35/1.4 are all great lenses, i will prolly like to stick with pentax glass for now.

I am not really into bugs and the like for macros...more like flowers. i am thinking if i do get the 35 ltd macro, i save myself a 35 lens, just as one post suggested and i think this makes a lot of sense too.

And please dont ask me to go straight to nikon at this stage as i started with the k-x and am extremely happy with it so far...this is not a troll post so pls dont think i am starting one thread to compare the pentax vs nikon for the sake of enjoying the flames. I really want to know what i should get for my setup. I do not know who else to ask these questions.

you can ask me. as I mentioned before, I had given some suggestions on which lenses to get. since you just started with the Pentax, I would recommend you to start with the DA35 macro. I suggested this basing on affordability and versatility of a 35mm focal length lens for general purpose, including portraits and flowers that you might want to concentrate on. I don't recommend a faster lens yet as a starter since you might not find this lens useful or needed as of the moment. until such time that you decide or need a fast lens, then I would assume that you can afford an FA77 by then.

however, having done the math and total amount of your ideal expenditure, I would say you would be extremely fine with a 2 lens combo and save yourself $150 bucks. a DA35 and FA77 combo is a homerun choice and I can't see any one else complaining of such a setup. this is the best option that your budget can afford right now. and personally this would be my choice if I were to have a 2 lens combo.

09-17-2010, 10:37 PM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 208
QuoteOriginally posted by ladybug Quote
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.
In your original post, you mention the focal lengths 28/50/85, as well as macro. For those interests, my suggestions would be:

28/35: personally I am partial to the F or FA 28/2.8 (used, about $250). If you prefer to purchase new, the new DA 35/2.4 is slightly faster and the 35 is closer to a film-era normal, and it is slightly cheaper. The FA 35/2 (used, Samsung version still in distribution) is more expensive but faster. The Sigma 28/1.8 and 30/1.4 are cheaper than the FA 35/2 or the DA 35/2.8 as well as faster, but also bulkier. The availability of Sigma glass is not a reason to chose Pentax, but it is a resource in building a kit.

50ish: if you do stick with 28 or 30 for the normal prime, then a DA 40 goes nicely with it (and is the most affordable of the Limited primes). The excellent 43 is much more expensive. FA 50/1.4, and F 50/1.7 are cheaper and faster but with less pixie dust. If speed is not the main concern then the D FA 50/2.8 macro (or its FA or F predecessors) is arguably the closest thing to the nikon 60 which you had chosen originally. I do not know how easy it is to find one of the AF 50 macros second-hand. The Sigma 50/2.8 macro available new, at a similar price to the Pentax "fast 50s" (i.e. 1.4, 1.7). The Pentax D FA 55/1.4 met with mixed reviews and is much more expensive than any of these (except the 43).

85ish: everyone recognizes this as a weak spot for Pentax, and the slightly shorter DA 70 and FA 77 are on the expensive side. One alternative is the 90mm Tamron, another would be to seek out the non-WR versions of the D FA 100/2.8 macro (or the similar FA 100/2.8). These are cheaper than the current WR but are still available, including the Samsung-branded version. If you are intending to do without a longer tele, a 100mm lens may give you some valuable reach, especially compared to a 70mm.

So here are some options based on this discussion:

O DA 15/4, DA 35/2.8 macro, FA 50/1.4 and DA 70/2.4, which gives you a lovely compact kit at a price point you are suggesting you might not afford.

O DA 15/4, F or FA 28/2.8, DA 40/2.8 and D FA 100/2.8. This gives good reach and long macro at the expense of a substantial gap between 40 and 100mm (this is actually similar to my own kit). This does not include fast glass, either.

O DA 15/4, DA 35/2.4, FA 50/1.4 and D FA 100/2.8 macro. This costs slightly less than the above while giving faster glass and moving the gap to the wide end. Such a gap could be filled later with a Sigma 24/1.8 if desired.

O DA 15/4, Sigma 28/1.8, FA 50/1.4, Tamron 90/2.8 macro. This less Pentaxian option might be the most reasonably priced, and all lenses are available new. It shamelessly uses third party glass alongside the unique Pentax 15. This could also be a good compromise kit to use while saving for FA 77 and 31 Limiteds.

I hope my dissection of options is of some help for others. We are now wrestling with some great opportunities, but in an era where few Pentax AF lenses are cheap any longer.

Last edited by Impartial; 09-17-2010 at 11:03 PM.
09-17-2010, 10:42 PM   #36
Veteran Member
raider's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,942
good recommendations. i like option 1 myself. I already have the FA50 and DA35 Ltd. Eyeing a DA15 and DA70 when i strike lottery or when i have decided to sell half my liver joking of course. This said, i find i dont use the FA50 that much after i have the DA35 and i suppose one can go without this lens...and so the setup becomes DA15, DA35 Ltd and DA70.
09-17-2010, 10:59 PM   #37
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
having some marvelous lenses at the particular focal lengths that the OP mentioned, I would say that she can't use all of them equally at the particular same time and situation. at most it would only be a 2 lens setup.

between the K28, FA35, FA50, Sigma 70, 3 85mm, and 1 90mm, I could only bring two and use two of which suits my rendering needs for that particular occasion.
09-17-2010, 11:05 PM   #38
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 208
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
having some marvelous lenses at the particular focal lengths that the OP mentioned, I would say that she can't use all of them equally at the particular same time and situation. at most it would only be a 2 lens setup.

between the K28, FA35, FA50, Sigma 70, 3 85mm, and 1 90mm, I could only bring two and use two of which suits my rendering needs for that particular occasion.
I carry 5 primes with me wherever I go. Doesn't everyone? :-)

09-18-2010, 01:03 AM   #39
Veteran Member
fikkser's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 373
QuoteOriginally posted by Clicker Quote
If you won't miss AF the used market is full of K and A primes. You might need to switch to Nikon as some already mentioned the D5000 or even the newer D3100 the former having the D90's low light capabilities.
D5000 is a horrible piece of plastic. Small vf and very bad big pixel lcd. Low end camera and high end lenses isn't logical to me. Tried to focus manually with a nikkor 35 1,8 in bad light and it was impossible. The lcd did not show the pictures as they would look on a monitor either.
09-18-2010, 01:10 AM   #40
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
>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 DA35/2.4 is coming at around $200.

>2. nikkor 50 vs pentax FA50.

I would not touch the Pentax FA50/1.4 due to the common seperation in recent years. The Nikkor AF50/1.4 is known to be the worst performer. If you don't mind used, F50/1.4/1.7 are great.

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

50x1.5=75mm, not so bad really. Or you can consider the FA77 or DA70, or even the ZK85/1.4 if you insist.

>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.

Both Canon & Nikon have far better lens lineup than Pentax if that's what you are asking. You will have to work out what you are looking for and calculate the cost, something nobody can do it for you. One thing I would like to point out is that, if you go prime, don't try to "plug" holes. Pick a few useful focal lengths and work around them. Otherwise, you are better off with zooms.
09-18-2010, 01:12 AM   #41
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Impartial Quote
I carry 5 primes with me wherever I go. Doesn't everyone? :-)
I had, and it's a pain in the neck and shoulder. so I had to choose among lenses which I would ideally use for such occasion. honestly, I sometimes find that not all lenses that I bring gets used at all.
09-18-2010, 01:35 AM   #42
Junior Member
ladybug's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 38
Original Poster
@impartial. Thanks for your thoughtful lens map for me. I think option 1 sounds good and i think i will also skip the FA50.

@pentaxor. I think i will indeed go for the DA35 Ltd as u suggest.

I believe i have the solution now. - DA15, DA35 Ltd and DA70.

I will skip the FA77, FA43, DA40, DA21.

3 primes should be sufficient for me for a long long time.

Many thanks for all your comments and help again.
09-18-2010, 01:46 AM   #43
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by wlachan Quote
>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 DA35/2.4 is coming at around $200.

>2. nikkor 50 vs pentax FA50.

I would not touch the Pentax FA50/1.4 due to the common seperation in recent years. The Nikkor AF50/1.4 is known to be the worst performer. If you don't mind used, F50/1.4/1.7 are great.

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

50x1.5=75mm, not so bad really. Or you can consider the FA77 or DA70, or even the ZK85/1.4 if you insist.

>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.

Both Canon & Nikon have far better lens lineup than Pentax if that's what you are asking. You will have to work out what you are looking for and calculate the cost, something nobody can do it for you. One thing I would like to point out is that, if you go prime, don't try to "plug" holes. Pick a few useful focal lengths and work around them. Otherwise, you are better off with zooms.

All True. although I would surely miss the Pentax Glass. I believe these are the main reason why people haven't entirely abandoned Pentax. from the setup I have, I can easily replace and get myself another system's FF camera + it's corresponding High-End Lenses. if only the Pentax Glass fits in other mounts, it would not be that difficult to decide to switch again and probably stay for good in those camera brands. disposing such lenses and changing them for something else is a hard pill to swallow.
09-18-2010, 01:51 AM   #44
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by ladybug Quote
@impartial. Thanks for your thoughtful lens map for me. I think option 1 sounds good and i think i will also skip the FA50.

@pentaxor. I think i will indeed go for the DA35 Ltd as u suggest.

I believe i have the solution now. - DA15, DA35 Ltd and DA70.

I will skip the FA77, FA43, DA40, DA21.

3 primes should be sufficient for me for a long long time.

Many thanks for all your comments and help again.

not a bad combo at all. I mean just perfect for covering all focal lengths that you will need. DA70 is a great lens as well and would be fast enough for starters. DA15 for landscapes and architectures. that is more than sufficient and you can live with them for a very long time.
09-18-2010, 01:52 AM   #45
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
At least K lenses can be used on m4/3, 4/3, NEX & EOS via adaptors when needed.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
af, equivalent, k-mount, macro, nikkor, nikon, pentax, pentax lens, range, slr lens, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If you could only have one prime Pentax lens… rams Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 41 07-23-2009 10:41 AM
Prime/Zoom debate and Nikon gnaztee Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 01-16-2008 08:38 PM
What do you think is the best pentax all-prime lineup? and Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 06-20-2007 03:17 AM
Will PRIME be in other Pentax? barondla Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 12-08-2006 01:59 PM
Old Pentax 50mm Prime PentaxDan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 10-03-2006 08:39 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:38 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top