Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-31-2011, 09:13 AM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 971
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
Well, I looked at this thread couple of days back and wow, has it developed...

@OP:
I found out (through my own experience) that threads like these are of no use.. It doesn't really matter who says what here, at the end of the day it's your decision.
You know, some may say you have great lens in xy and some may say you'd be better off with ab, what matters is what you like...
K-5 is SR and WR, D7000 is definitely not SR and I ain't sure about WR. Do you like pictures you are getting with your current glass? Do you think you could get similar/same results with other/cheaper lenses? The point is, if you see two shots next to each other, one with FA43 and one with 35/1.8G and you can't tell the difference then why not to switch... It's all matter of personal expectations, tastes and reasoning...

If you want to stay with Pentax and save few bucks, keep 77, sell FA50 and FA43, get DA L35/2.4 and track down used F/FA50/1.7... Then you'd save and have just about the equivalent of the Nikkor line up you are looking at...

I thought of switching systems many times, so why I'm staying? Size/performance ratio, SR and backwards compatibility. In these respects I think Pentax still wins...

@others:
I think we are all entitled to express our opinions, and ways we do so just reflects our ways. Personaly I don't think the reply in question was rude but nor was it constructive IMO...
My thoughts exactly, except i'm more to the point. i had no intention of being rude to anyone, i'm just straight forward that's all.

01-31-2011, 10:22 AM   #32
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
You are comparing top of the line Pentax primes with "mid-range" Nikon glass. Of course the price comparison isn't fair.
this is exactly the other point that I was saying. if one would compare something from price/performance quality of one type of lens over another, it would be fair to compare it to something that is similar on the other brand.

what the OP is saying that he paid more for the price of a high end Pentax lens and put it against the cheaper mid-range end Nikon. just to make it easy to understand , it's like buying the DA35/2.4 instead of the FA31.

the OP is trying to validate his purchasing budget on upgrading his camera but is unsure of whether he is downgrading his lenses. the easiest thing the OP should do is to look at the price comparison between the Nikon 50/1.8 and it's high end 50/1.4 brother, and 85/1.8 to the Nikon 85/1.4. so the OP does not necessarily save money in terms of lens quality, but in truth just made a focal length and speed equivalent on another brand. although I must say that the Nikon lenses that he mentioned are very good, but they are not exactly as what you call as high end. if you what something better than that, you will not find anything cheaper but rather a huge price gap as well.
01-31-2011, 11:50 AM   #33
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by heasley Quote
I have enjoyed Pentax for a few years now. I initially perservered with the 18-55 kit lens until relatively recently I began to splurge on some nice primes.

I currently have the FA 50mm f/1.4, FA 43mm f/1.9 limited, FA 77mm f/1.8 limited, the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX, and the kit lens. I currently have the K-x to carry me over until my upgrade.

I was looking to upgrade to the k-5. I have suddenly realised I can get the Nikon D7000 for about $400 less (K-5 cost $1650 and the D7000 cost $1250).

I then started looking at Nikon primes. This is when my jawreally dropped. I canpurchase the following Nikkor lenses for around $800: 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 (the price of a single 77mm limited).

So for around $2000 I could go Nikon. I could sell my current gear for more then this.

Are the Pentax primes worth staying with Pentax?

Heasely, I shoot both systems and can maybe help a bit...

You have discovered a real honey-pot in the Nikon lens lineup - the 35 1.8G, 50 1.8D and 85 1.8D are fine lenses, can be had for very little money (especially used) and are very fun to shoot.

Your FA 43ltd is a better lens than the 50 1.8D - but the 50 1.8 is still very good (as most fast-50's are.) It's about equivalent to the Pentax FA 50 1.7.

The 77ltd is a better lens than the 85 1.8D - a tad sharper, better OOF transition and bokeh, just more 'pop' (think color transmition, microcontrast, general contrast.) BUT - the 85 1.8D is still very good. The difference between it and the much more expensive Nikon 85 f/1.4D is not as great as a lot of 85 1.4 owners would have you believe

The 35 1.8G is a $199 wonder - very sharp wide-open, and I think it has nice bokeh for a 35mm. It's not as good optically as the Pentax 35 2.8 Limited macro or FA 31ltd... but I think you have to step up to Ziess, or the Nikon 35 1.4 to match the 35ltd and 31ltd. The 35 1.8G is fast, small, sharp-sharp-sharp, inexpensive, and a no-brainer. It has a little bit of CA and shows some distortion that you can start to see in portraits close-up,but these are quibbles.

Another thing to consider - at least on my K20D, the FA 77ltd and FA 43ltd locked focus very slowly compared to the 50 1.8D and 85 1.8D on the D90 (and D700.) I think the K-5 may lock focus faster, but I doubt the k-5/77 combo would be able to match the D90-class + 85 1.8D in af-lock, especially in low-light. If this is important to you (it was to me,) you should consider that. AF-lock is one of the main reasons I bought into Nikon in the first place.

The 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 become even better on FF (FX,) IMO. That path is available to you with Nikon - it may come with Pentax, but not this year and probably not next.

What Pentax offers in the Limiteds is a set of lenses that are priced between the consumer and 'pro' tier Nikon lenses - but are just as good optically as the Nikon 'pro' lenses, while being smaller. So, in that respect they are a bargain. (and Nikon doesn't have the DA 15ltd, something that annoys Thom Hogan (Nikon god) himself! )

See ---> this thread for lots of shots with the three Nikon lenses you mention, and three others I swear by - the 20 2.8D, 300 f/4 AF, and my favorite Nikon lens - the 180 2.8 AF-N.

Good luck!



.
01-31-2011, 01:41 PM   #34
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,989
I think basically, you have a very nice prime set up right now. Currently, there is no particular reason for you to switch to Nikon, at least for the primes. The primes you have mentioned will be a step down from what you have. Better to shoot with an older camera body with nice glass, than vice versa.

The only reason I think you should look at Nikon, is if you are interested in full frame. Of course, once you compare prices between the D700 and the K5, any savings you have got on lenses will go away.

01-31-2011, 03:45 PM   #35
Forum Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 99
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Heasely, I shoot both systems and can maybe help a bit...

You have discovered a real honey-pot in the Nikon lens lineup - the 35 1.8G, 50 1.8D and 85 1.8D are fine lenses, can be had for very little money (especially used) and are very fun to shoot.

...

What Pentax offers in the Limiteds is a set of lenses that are priced between the consumer and 'pro' tier Nikon lenses - but are just as good optically as the Nikon 'pro' lenses, while being smaller. So, in that respect they are a bargain. (and Nikon doesn't have the DA 15ltd, something that annoys Thom Hogan (Nikon god) himself! )

See ---> this thread for lots of shots with the three Nikon lenses you mention, and three others I swear by - the 20 2.8D, 300 f/4 AF, and my favorite Nikon lens - the 180 2.8 AF-N.

Good luck!


very informative, thanks. Slow focus is one of the few things frustrating me about pentax.
01-31-2011, 07:18 PM   #36
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by heasley Quote
very informative, thanks. Slow focus is one of the few things frustrating me about pentax.
then that would be a good reason.
01-31-2011, 08:04 PM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Flushing NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 412
QuoteOriginally posted by Eagle_Friends Quote
maybe you should read my other post friend, because now you're sounding like a troll.. =[
Ok, you're just going to hide behind the "I'm not rude I'm just direct" garbage again when I tell you that another thing I'm sick of seeing on this forum is the reflexive use of the word "troll".
01-31-2011, 08:47 PM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 971
i'm not hiding, i'm right here, and i stand by what i said.

you mad?

01-31-2011, 08:56 PM   #39
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
Didn't you know pentup that people on the internet that cant take an opinion automatically label everyone a troll that disagrees with them. Its seen on every forum basically, its sad.

Well anyways, the other people seemed to help the TC, thats good, good luck with whatever you choose, both Nikon and Pentax are good imo, they are my two favorite brands. I would stick with Pentax because of backwards compatibility and maybe SR. Though who am I to talk I just switched from Nikon to Pentax haha. Not to say that I wont ever touch my Nikon stuff cause I totally will still use it from time to time.
01-31-2011, 09:55 PM   #40
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,175
QuoteOriginally posted by heasley Quote
Slow focus is one of the few things frustrating me about pentax.
The K-5 should be a notch quicker than your K-x. I believe with the K-5 Pentax pretty much closed the gap. Maybe regarding AF-C there is still a difference but it is no longer as huge as it used to be.

Yes, the Canikon flagships will still be quicker but they cost $$$.
01-31-2011, 11:25 PM   #41
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 299
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
The K-5 should be a notch quicker than your K-x. I believe with the K-5 Pentax pretty much closed the gap. Maybe regarding AF-C there is still a difference but it is no longer as huge as it used to be.

Yes, the Canikon flagships will still be quicker but they cost $$$.
who say that ? did you ever test K-5 in hand ?
i think recently the just fix-up they AF-speed.

Pentax is not slow in AF anymore..trust me, they grow up and made by Fotografer ... because some camera is produced by engginer and economic expert ..
if you now what imean

NIKON prime is good, i believe that, but is not a good SMC A in manual term

i have been try 80mm/f2 AIS and compare with SMC -A .... they both weight the same ... but im still have SR on my body ...
02-01-2011, 02:45 AM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern England
Posts: 495
I think the fact that the Pentax offers SR for all lenses is often underestimated. In limited light situations, you may well be getting 3-4 stops-worth of SR. If your subject isn't moving around too much, this is a bit like having an F1.0 lens instead of an f4 (and without the DOF penalty of the wide aperture).

I think many of us take SR for granted - I don't think we'd like it if it were suddenly removed.
02-01-2011, 05:17 AM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Flushing NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 412
QuoteOriginally posted by m42man Quote
I think many of us take SR for granted - I don't think we'd like it if it were suddenly removed.
The number one advantage of Pentax over canikon, imo. I don't think I've ever tried to get 3-4 stops with it though.

One reason I'm not holding my breath for a Pentax full-frame is the SR: does any manufacturer make a full-frame camera with in body shake reduction? It seems to me such a mechanism would be very expensive to produce, heavy and maybe quite loud -- I worry Pentax would either skip SR completely for full-frame, or start a new lens line with stabilization, which could get quite expensive.

EDIT: just as I submitted that, it occurs to me that perhaps Nikon full-frame users don't bother with VR anyway, given the greater dynamic range of full-frame to begin with. Someone who uses full-frame, enlighten me. Hell, I'll never be able to afford ff anyway...
02-01-2011, 05:39 AM   #44
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,989
QuoteOriginally posted by pentup Quote
The number one advantage of Pentax over canikon, imo. I don't think I've ever tried to get 3-4 stops with it though.

One reason I'm not holding my breath for a Pentax full-frame is the SR: does any manufacturer make a full-frame camera with in body shake reduction? It seems to me such a mechanism would be very expensive to produce, heavy and maybe quite loud -- I worry Pentax would either skip SR completely for full-frame, or start a new lens line with stabilization, which could get quite expensive.

EDIT: just as I submitted that, it occurs to me that perhaps Nikon full-frame users don't bother with VR anyway, given the greater dynamic range of full-frame to begin with. Someone who uses full-frame, enlighten me. Hell, I'll never be able to afford ff anyway...
Image stabilization has nothing really to do with dynamic range, but certainly if you can get an extra stop of high iso from full frame, that is worth something. People shooting Nikon tend to get VR for longer lenses and not for others. At 200 mm, you should be at 1/200 second to get truly sharp photos without VR/IS/SR. Tough to get there in doors, even shooting at iso 6400.

I think most people with Canon/Nikon would prefer to have stabilized longer lenses, but as to whether or not they can afford a lens like the 70-200 f2.8 VR II is another story.
02-01-2011, 05:43 AM   #45
Senior Member
joakimfors's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lund, Sweden
Posts: 237
QuoteOriginally posted by pentup Quote
[]

One reason I'm not holding my breath for a Pentax full-frame is the SR: does any manufacturer make a full-frame camera with in body shake reduction?

[]
Sony A850 and A900
Closed Thread

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!
77mm, d7000, f/1.8, fa, k-5, k-mount, kit, nikon, pentax, pentax lens, pentax vs nikon, primes, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
where all the pentax primes? john43 Ask B&H Photo! 9 12-02-2010 08:17 AM
For Sale - Sold: Nikon D700 w/Nikon Battery Grip, Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II (US) luke0622 Sold Items 1 11-04-2010 10:41 AM
Equivalent of Pentax primes on Canon and Nikon FF systems dexmus Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 10-01-2010 11:16 PM
For Sale - Sold: smc Pentax M Primes, S-M-C Primes, THE Series 1 70~210 Zoom, Viv MFTC and more monochrome Sold Items 33 02-13-2009 01:29 PM
Pentax Primes KFrog Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 01-19-2008 01:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:31 AM. | 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