Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-07-2012, 09:09 AM   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,827
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote
IMHO, the latest Nikon lenses are far better than the Pentax ones in the OP's list.
I don't agree in most of these lenses. But that's based on a non-scientific analysis of images I've seen.

Is this an unsubstantiated statistic, or have you been comparing sharpness charts?

01-07-2012, 09:12 AM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,827
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
a) Pentax is "fully committed" to APSc
b) We are unliekly to see a FF Pentax
Can't we limit this to the rumors & FF threads?
01-07-2012, 09:17 AM   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,827
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
Comparing the 85/1.4 lenses, a more fair comparison might be to the screw driven 85/1.4D of the same vintage as opposed to the much newer 85/1.4G with the built in AF-S motor.

Nikon 85/1.4G $1700 new, $1400-1500 used
Nikon 85/1.4D $800-900 used
Pentax FA*85/1.4 $1200-1400 used


Comparing the 70-200/2.8 options, again I would argue that the 70-200/2.8 VRI is the closer comparison to the 80-200/2.8, and they are about the same price used. Then don't forget the VRI has a silent and fast built in motor and VR.

Nikon 70-200/2.8 VRII $2400 new, $1800-2000 used
Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR1 $1300-1500 used
Pentax FA*80-200/2.8 $1400-1600 used
I feel that the optical stabilization vs sensor stabilization is a wash. There's arguments for each.

Now the silent focusing is something, but short of dredging back up that argument, There's plenty here that strongly dislike SDM, so I feel for some, that is also a wash. Personally, I'd rather have the silent focusing, but I'm not interested in the price difference to Nikon's gear.
01-07-2012, 09:19 AM   #19
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,827
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by maxfield_photo Quote
But you know what really scares me? I'm starting to think that $3500 for an FA* 300 f2.8 seems pretty reasonable.

Clinton, YOU'RE NOT HELPING!
I thought about mentioning the Canon glass here also, but it's so much more than the Nikon glass.

Would it help to know the Canon 300/2.8 is 8 large?

01-07-2012, 09:24 AM   #20
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
I feel that the optical stabilization vs sensor stabilization is a wash. There's arguments for each.

Now the silent focusing is something, but short of dredging back up that argument, There's plenty here that strongly dislike SDM, so I feel for some, that is also a wash. Personally, I'd rather have the silent focusing, but I'm not interested in the price difference to Nikon's gear.
I'm not sure I agree about the stabilization on long glass, but that wasn't really the point of my post. Nor was the point about the AF-S motors, which do not have the same level of dislike that SDM motors do.

My point is that if you really want to compare apples and apples in your original list, the price of a used FA*85/1.4 should be compared to the price of a used 85/1.4D and the price of a used FA*80-200 should be compared to the price of a used 70-200VR1. As for the longer glass on that list, all of that is above my pay grade so I can't really comment on those lenses.
01-07-2012, 09:33 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,827
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
My point is that if you really want to compare apples and apples in your original list, the price of a used FA*85/1.4 should be compared to the price of a used 85/1.4D and the price of a used FA*80-200 should be compared to the price of a used 70-200VR1. As for the longer glass on that list, all of that is above my pay grade so I can't really comment on those lenses.
I have to concede, you're probably right, but I don't have easy stats on those from Amazon, like I do with the new Nikon glass
01-07-2012, 09:50 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Aegon's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,414
When I shot Nikon, I found Tokina variants of Pentax glass to be cheaper than their cousins.

Tokina 35mm $260 new
Tokina 12-24 $300 used
Tokina 50-135 $500 used
Tokina 16-50 $300 used

I had all of these, every one of them was equal or better to their Pentax cousin. (I suggest better because Tokina's construction is fantastic, though not WR. On the side, some of these were scredrive only for Nikon. On the minus side, no SR. etc. etc.)
01-07-2012, 05:19 PM   #23
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
Used vs new is tricky. If Pentax would re-release updated versions of those lenses, they would cost as much as Nikon's and maybe even more. The lower prices just reflect the interest in old exotic Pentax equipment.

01-07-2012, 06:25 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Aegon's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,414
LC, I get your point and agree that used vs new is tricky. But You can't buy a Tokina 50-135mm new, nor a Pentax 85/1.4.
01-07-2012, 06:28 PM   #25
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
Silly comparison. Those Pentax lenses are OOP long ago and with ancient AF technologies and optical formula which aren't that great on digital. Used FA* market prices are largely inflated based on wishful assumption that they are optically superior even today. IMHO, FA* lenses worth more than they actually are performance wise. On the other hand, newer AF Nikkors are more expensive but they perform when you need it. No BS, no excuse.
01-07-2012, 06:42 PM   #26
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,827
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by wlachan Quote
IMHO, FA* lenses worth more than they actually are performance wise. On the other hand, newer AF Nikkors are more expensive but they perform when you need it. No BS, no excuse.
Maybe we need an FA* 600/4 vs Nikon 600/4 shootout.
01-07-2012, 06:52 PM   #27
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
Maybe we need an FA* 600/4 vs Nikon 600/4 shootout.
Won't matter I am afraid because there is no way the FA*600/4 could AF track as good as the Nikkor, or even close. That's what held Pentax back back then, and still is. Sadly nothing has been done the last 2 decades and Pentax AF just lag totally behind. It's a cool to have lens but not the one get the job done.
01-07-2012, 07:57 PM   #28
Pentaxian
Aegon's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,414
QuoteOriginally posted by wlachan Quote
newer AF Nikkors are more expensive but they perform when you need it
As an example, I found the Nikkor AFS 50mm ƒ/1.4 G to be a turd. Both copies.

The 85/1.4D was good, though.
01-07-2012, 08:11 PM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
SteveM's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,295
QuoteOriginally posted by wlachan Quote
Sadly nothing has been done the last 2 decades and Pentax AF just lag totally behind. It's a cool to have lens but not the one get the job done.
While I agree that Pentax has some work to do on the AF front, I don't agree with your statement. Camera bodies have seen a vast improvement, and even the K5 itself has narrowed the gap. Since it's the bodies that are responsible for AF, you'll see surprising good AF with the FA*600.
01-07-2012, 08:21 PM   #30
Pentaxian
Aegon's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,414
QuoteOriginally posted by wlachan Quote
Used FA* market prices are largely inflated based on wishful assumption that they are optically superior even today. IMHO, FA* lenses worth more than they actually are performance wise.
While I'm at it, I disagree with this statement too.

I love the FA 77. I tried the 43 and can see why some love it, but I preferred the DA 40. In the case of the 43, the lens wasn't flawed, but instead rendered differently than I like. The 31 didn't appeal to me, but wide(er) lenses never have.
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!
glass, k-mount, nikon, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Great glass on the cheap pdxbmw Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 07-15-2009 09:42 PM
Cheap Wine Glass - With Wine Sailor Post Your Photos! 15 01-18-2009 07:19 AM
=Gosh, is it me, or= jgredline Pentax Film SLR Discussion 67 10-28-2008 09:43 PM
Cheap manual lens on cheap extension tube with cheap flash! Also cats. pasipasi Post Your Photos! 12 08-28-2008 04:43 PM
K10 shots with cheap glass shots vievetrick Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 12-05-2006 05:23 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:42 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