[geekette]

I notice often they talk down the Pentax when I comes to lens availability. They brag there are more lenses available.

Tell me, aren't there hundreds of different makes/models of m42 lenses? Can the Nikon focus to infinity with these said lenses?--No. (Not without sacrificing optical quality.)

Are the Nikon APS-C cameras as backwards compatible with their lenses as Pentax? No.

Also, I seem to see a lot more pentax lenses at flea markets, shopgoodwill.com. Nikon lenses are fewer and more expensive.

Also the built in autofocus motor and image stabilization of the Pentax is very appealing. Not to mention that it can meter old glass (APS-C Nikons can't at all).

I just don't see how Nikon has Pentax beat with respect to lenses.

Side note: I can say that Canon has em all beat with respect to lens availability since so many good glassless adapters exist for various brands of lenses, but you have to spend a fortune to get a camera that has image quality on par with a Pentax K-X.

I am not going to lie, I've been very tempted by the new Nikon D5100--since its image quality is insanely good, can sync the flash better, more availability of accessories & 3rd party x-ttl flashes for cheap, and tethering--but I just can't give up the lens AVAILABILITY I have with the PENTAX. (It's a KEY reason I am sticking with Pentax.)

I just wish the consumers and prosumers would see the light and go for Pentax like they did back in the 70's & 80's.

Sorry, just had to let it out! Lol.

---

Last edited by geekette; 06-30-2011 at 01:01 AM.

[kwetiaw]

yeah agree. reason i go with pentax is the backwards compatibility with m42 lenses and manual pentax k mount

[wshi]

As far as I know, higher end Nikon bodies can meter very well with their older lenses. Just enter in the max aperture and focal length and you have more convenient metering than with pentax M lenses that require stop down metering. So in that sense, all old AI and AIS lenses are good to go, assuming you have at least a D200 or something.

That being said, I'm not sure I've ever really heard Nikon users brag that much about old lenses... more like old pentax glass gets tons of praise. Probably just because I've been on this forum so much

[praxxis]

not mentioning the SR function that you don't need to buy on every lenses you want to use/have...

[RioRico]

And not to mention that old Nikon-mount lenses are easily converted to Pentax, but not vice-versa...

[geekette]

Nikon lenses can be easily converted to pentax? How much does it cost on average per lens to make this modification?

[geekette]

As far as I know, higher end Nikon bodies can meter very well with their older lenses. Just enter in the max aperture and focal length and you have more convenient metering than with pentax M lenses that require stop down metering. So in that sense, all old AI and AIS lenses are good to go, assuming you have at least a D200 or something.

That being said, I'm not sure I've ever really heard Nikon users brag that much about old lenses... more like old pentax glass gets tons of praise. Probably just because I've been on this forum so much

Yeah but how much does the high end Nikon body cost? Probably out of the consumer and prosumer range?

[Boris]

I notice often they talk down the Pentax when I comes to lens availability. They brag there are more lenses available.

Admittedly, Pentax lens system offers less variety of lenses than Nikon. E.g. 24/1.4, 24-70/2.8, 35/1.4, tilt and shift lenses. These don't exist in Pentax land. There're similar lenses but not face to face equivalents.

Also, it seems to me that from market share perspective Nikon may have produced more lenses than Pentax by sheer volume.

So, perhaps there're reasons for that bragging.

Not that it should bother anyone to the slightest though. Either you want something and you can and hence get it, or not, for any reason, be it money, availability, mere existence, etc.

[Digitalis]

But you also hear them complaining about how expensive they are.

[geekette]

Admittedly, Pentax lens system offers less variety of lenses than Nikon. E.g. 24/1.4, 24-70/2.8, 35/1.4, tilt and shift lenses. These don't exist in Pentax land. There're similar lenses but not face to face equivalents.

Also, it seems to me that from market share perspective Nikon may have produced more lenses than Pentax by sheer volume.

So, perhaps there're reasons for that bragging.

Not that it should bother anyone to the slightest though. Either you want something and you can and hence get it, or not, for any reason, be it money, availability, mere existence, etc.

How about the Pentax FA 28-70/2.8 ? Is there that much of a difference between 24mm and 28mm?

[Macario]

How about the Pentax FA 28-70/2.8 ? Is there that much of a difference between 24mm and 28mm?

yes there is, a huge difference in FOV

[RonHendriks1966]

They brag there are more lenses available.

A client of mine also says this was her biggest argument to choose for Nikon. She has one camera and two lenses

[geekette]

yes there is, a huge difference in FOV

Ok, I guess I'll just have to step back a little further than a Nikonian

[RioRico]

Nikon lenses can be easily converted to pentax? How much does it cost on average per lens to make this modification?

My cost is under US$1 each, because I can re-use the Dremel metal-cutting blade on several lenses.

I've modded a few manual NI-mount lenses, and I use a couple more that need (or permit) minimal or no modding. Now, I'm not sure of the nomenclature for all the NI-mount variations, but I classify them like this:

1) A solid rim around the aperture ring -- I haven't modded these yet (see below)
2) No rim around the aperture ring -- can make a secure fit with just 1 small cut
3) N/AI mount, with "nub and arc" protruding from the aperture ring -- cut them off
4) AF mount -- the one I had wouldn't force-fit, so I don't even bother trying

Types 2 and 3 can be given a secure fit by cutting a slot about 1mm wide and deep and 5mm long into the lens base so the Pentax camera lens-locking pin can engage. The bases of these types also safely short-out the Pentax mount contact pins, so CIF (catch-in-focus) can be used.

Type 1 mounts *could* be modded in a couple ways, more or less cheap. I won't bore you with the details of why I haven't done so yet. Suffice to say that I don't yet have the knack of the easy way, and I'm too lazy for (and haven't been forced to try) the harder ways. Those harder ways would only involve a couple bucks for parts. Someday...

NOTE: I am not a lens techie. My workbench is a 2x6in wood railing on the back porch in good weather, or a 1x8in pine plank across the bathroom sink in bad weather. My tools are Dremel, pliers and screwdrivers. My hands aren't the steadiest. Yet I manage. If *I* can make these mods, almost anybody can. Just gotta wanna.

[Frogfish]

yes there is, a huge difference in FOV

It's not a huge difference, maybe a notable difference but ca. 15% certainly isn't huge. The FoV of the Sigma 10-20 to Pentax 12-24 is 20% but many people still prefer to buy the 12-24. Certainly 24 to 28 is even less noticeable and easily overcome with just a little leg work.

With regard to amount of lenses available - how many do you actually need ? With one notable exception (tilt & shift) Pentax and high quality 3rd party options (SP, EX, AT-Pro plus new Zeiss or Voigtlander etc.), have at least some options in virtually every FL you could wish for (even those long birding FLs) - though not always easily found persistance will eventually win out. And the SR from the Pentax bodies make them even more desirable than the non-SR Nikon back catalogue.

Nikon & Canon also have largely replicated catalogues of APS-C & FF and SR and non-SR lenses, meaning, for some of them at least, you just get to choose if you want to pay the huge premium for a vibration controlled lense or not.

Conversions - Leitax can offer kits or they can do it for you (for a price), over here I pay between $30 and $50 for a conversion, and I;' rather pay that than try DIY and make a mess of an expensive lense ! Maybe worth a try on a bargain bin lense ?