[ladybug]

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.

[paperbag846]

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.

In general, if you add up the total cost of a pentax and equivalent nikon system, they will be about the same price. You will win some and lose some with specific lenses. One big advantage with Pentax is that you are never paying for shake reduction, which can cost you a LOT, especially on longer zooms. I'm pretty sure none of those Nikon lenses are shake-resistant.

The lens quality, for all intents and purposes, will be nicer with the limited pentax lenses, and will be a wash with the non-limited lenses.

E.g., the Pentax 35mm (2.8, macro) will be a sharper lens with more flexibility than the Nikon 35mm (2.0). In addition , the pentax will have shake reduction. Those extra features cost you an additional 200 ish dollars.

With pentax, the major issue is not having pure budget lens options in the prime category (which the 35mm 2.4 aims to change, and will be less expensive than the nikon offering).

PS you tend to need to spend more on a Nikon body to get full functionality akin to a K7, for example.

[deadwolfbones]

I'd recommend the Nikon 50/1.8 over the 1.4... it's sharpish from 1.8, deadly sharp from 2.8, and you'll probably never miss the extra half-stop.

The 85/1.8 is a remarkable lens. Super sharp from wide open, great bokeh.

In my experience, Nikon primes are just as good as Pentax primes, though the Ltd's do have that "pixie dust" everyone talks about.

[wizofoz]

Pro friends of mine swear by the Nikkor 85 F1.8. The only current 'sort of' equivalent to it in Pentax land is the Fa77 or Da 70. Not exactly the same focal length, but damned fine portrait lenses. I doubt you can find a Fa77 for anywhere near $440US though. I haven't checked on the DA prices. As an alternative, I would highly recommend the Samyung (it goes by several name variants) 85mm F1.4. It is a manual focus lens, but it has wonderful rendering and you will be able to find it for well under $400 US. Mine got stolen last year, and even thought it got replaced by the FA77, I still pine for it.

[Marc Sabatella]

Also, not sure why you're not considering the $200 Nikon 35 or the recently announced $200 Pentax DA L 35, but those seem like they should be on your list. For Pentax, the new DA35 and the DA70 for portraits seem like the best combo. The equivalent Nikon combo (35 & 85) would be about the same price, but personally, I find 70mm a better portrait length, plus of course the Pentax system will be stabilized and the Nikon won't. Also note many of the Nikon lenses won't autofocus on any of the cheaper bodies.

[pcarfan]

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.

Looking at your list, the Nikon D5000 probably would have been a better choice. Your list of lenses have Nikon in front of them, why fight it with the wrong Body ?

[pinholecam]

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'd have to say that Pentax is relatively weak at the moment when it comes to AF cheapish primes.

The DA35/2.8 ltd macro is sharper, macro and better built being a ltd vs the Nikon 28/2.8
The new DA35/2.4 might fit your budget as well.

The 50/1.4 are roughly similar AFAIK.

Nikon 85/1.8 is a good and cheap lens. This is a FL that Pentax is really lacking in ATM. The cheaper options are all MF. I would recommend the M85/2 which is a fantastic performer on APS-C. All the other MF Pentax 85mm choices are great as well.

For a Pentax option of the 60/2.8 macro, it would be the DA50/2.8 macro, DFA100/2.8 WR or the many good Tamron/Sigma options. Again, AFAIK, all these are good options.

[JonPB]

There are, in my mind, three possibly compelling reasons to go with Pentax:

Weather-resistant lenses. Admittedly, there aren't many offerings here, far more in the <$1000 range than other manufacturers.

Compact lenses. Some of the Limited lenses are absolutely tiny, and while they may sacrifice some speed they do not compromise anything optically.

Backwards compatibility. 50 year old lenses? With some inconvenience, you can use them. 20 year old lenses? Act just like they were designed for the camera, if you're using Pentax.

If none of those things appeal to you, then you might be better off with Nikon.

That said, camera manufacturers all have different takes on ergonomics. They all have a different feel. I like how Pentax does things. If how the tools operate in your hands matter to you, then you should try out Canon and Nikon at a big store before switching. You might decide that paying 10% extra for sheer enjoyment of use--nothing to do with the images, but which might help you get out and take more images more enjoyably--is worth it.

[troglodyte]

Last Nikon body I tried was the D300. It didn't feel as nice as my k7. The budget lenses for Nikon feel like they will fall apart. My da21 feels nearly as good as my ISCO. The A501.7 is pretty good for $90.

[ladybug]

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.

[Clicker]

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.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

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?

It doesn't matter whether everyone objectively recommends something if you'll subjectively prefer something else. This is about your preferences, not about what other people think.

I like Nikon, but there are some things that bother me about a Nikon system:

- no image stabilization in bodies
- cannot use M42 lenses because of the larger flange distance

If these don't matter to you that much, flip a coin or make a shopping list and see where you get a better deal from.

[John Poirier]

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.

As size and weight seem to be critical for you, you should go to a camera shop and get your hands on some Nikon lenses and bodies. Then you can make an informed decision.

I'm a 35-year Pentax user and have a lot of Pentax lenses. I also used Nikon gear professionally for 20 years. I can't make a convincing argument that Pentax presents a better value for your stated lens requirements, particularly given your wish for new AF lenses. Nikon makes fine lenses. Their prices are very competitive.

If you're on a budget and considering used legacy lenses it's a different story.

John

[MrCynical]

With pentax, the major issue is not having pure budget lens options in the prime category (which the 35mm 2.4 aims to change, and will be less expensive than the nikon offering).

Depends on where you are in the world. Here in the UK the preorder price is £179, whereas the Nikon sells for about £165. So essentially the same price, for a lens which doesn't have silent focusing and is nearly a stop slower.

[deadwolfbones]

Depends on where you are in the world. Here in the UK the preorder price is £179, whereas the Nikon sells for about £165. So essentially the same price, for a lens which doesn't have silent focusing and is nearly a stop slower.

Excellent post/username there.