[zapp]

Is it just me or is lenses for Pentax cost more then Nikon?

Is this good or bad news for you?

[cali92rs]

I have a question, just for those that are heavily or even moderately invested in Pentax. If I could give you every dime you had invested in Pentax gear, at what you paid for it, would you take it and switch to something else? This would seem to be the ultimate test of how we really see the situation? Honest answers please.......it's OK to be on the Dark Side for a few minutes!

Regards!

Absolutely 100% yes.

[normhead]

There really are two sides to every coin I think, Norm! Olympus also has in-body shake reduction and can shoot old manual lenses at the press of the shutter in aperture priority, no stop down needed - sure it is a 2x crop, but aps-c is no FF either

I simply can't believe that as an example of excess and unnecessary gadgetry you chose better autofocus, come on - its better! I also don't think you can really blame the camera for your friend not getting to know it before hand No doubt it is hard to find buried in the menu system though - I am sure the d3200 lacks many tactile controls - Pentax definitely always wins there since they only run a 2 body line their cameras have always tended to punch up a level to be competitive.

I'm shooting most of my wildlife right now with an A-400. Really, I don't want to pay for an auto-focus 400mm prime lens, made by any company. Neither Canon nor Nikon are better auto-focus across the whole range of products or usages. While Canon and Nikon have better predictive auto-focus for sports ro BiFs... in their top of the line cameras, Pentax is within .15 second of both achieving focus lock in full sunlight of many tested Nikon and Canon systems on stationary or slow moving targets. It's not really much of an advantage. Certatinly not what it's made out to be. And then when you look at how much better the Pentax is achieving focus accuracy in still and slow moving subjects, for shooters like myself Pentax is actually better. So when you say it's better you aren't telling the whole story...

Canikons are better in predictive focus, about equal in good light for speed, and worse in focusing accuracy. At least in the models in Pentax's price range. It's really annoying when people look at Canon's or Nikons high end models and compare them to Pentax's at a fraction the price. It's also annoying when people say things like Nikon's or Canon's af is better. In some ways it is, but you either pay a lot more for it, or it's only better in some ways. You're not speaking for every shooter when you say that.

I shoot as much wildlife as i can, and I've never been a position where I thought a was suffering because I was shooting Pentax, my wolf shots I was standing next to a guy with an FF canon, my baby moose shots I was standing next to a guy with an FF Nikon. I'm getting better shots with my A-400 than they are with their 70-200s. According to you, I should be itching to switch... but, I'm not. Until you understand why, I'm not sure you even understand the situation.

[tlwyse]

There's probably no convincing the zealouts...but here's a comparison (attached PDF) I put together the other day...comparing camera systems/lenses of a K-5, Nikon D600 and D800E. In the top portions I chose premium lenses that were all in the same (effective) focal length range. In the bottom, I made substitutions of nearly equal quality lenses (lens quality was based mostly on DxOMark scores). You can see that with only a few lens substituions of the Nikon lenses, lenses that are arguably of equal or better quality than what's available for Pentax, that you can get within spitting distance of the cost of a Pentax system....in the case of the D600, a bit less, the D800E a bit more. Prices were pulled from B&H and rounded to the nearest whole USD amount.

Let me re-state that I've been a Pentax "fanboy" since I was 16 and picked up my first Spotmatic F when I shot for the high school yearbook and have had Pentax ever since....(ME, ME Super, K1000, LX, Pz1P, K100D, K10D, K20D and 6x7)...nearly 40 years worth......but reality is reality and I'm ready to switch unless Pentax announces a 20+mp Full Frame body in the next 6 months...and keeps it under $2K USD.

Terry

Attached Images

Camera Comparison.pdf (2.73 MB, 223 views)

[normhead]

There's probably no convincing the zealouts...but here's a comparison (attached PDF) I put together the other day...comparing camera systems/lenses of a K-5, Nikon D600 and D800E. In the top portions I chose premium lenses that were all in the same (effective) focal length range. In the bottom, I made substitutions of nearly equal quality lenses (lens quality was based mostly on DxOMark scores). You can see that with only a few lens substituions of the Nikon lenses, lenses that are arguably of equal or better quality than what's available for Pentax, that you can get within spitting distance of the cost of a Pentax system....in the case of the D600, a bit less, the D800E a bit more. Prices were pulled from B&H and rounded to the nearest whole USD amount.

Let me re-state that I've been a Pentax "fanboy" since I was 16 and picked up my first Spotmatic F when I shot for the high school yearbook and have had Pentax ever since....(ME, ME Super, K1000, LX, Pz1P, K100D, K10D, K20D and 6x7)...nearly 40 years worth......but reality is reality and I'm ready to switch unless Pentax announces a 20+mp Full Frame body in the next 6 months...and keeps it under $2K USD.

Terry

hmmmm, you have the Pentax system after the substitutions at $1500 less than a D600 and the D800 $2800 more. YOu do realize that a lot of people don't spend $1500 on thier whole system. ANd to get the systems that close you traded the a 2.8 70-200 for a 70-200 f4 lens....OK now trade the Pentax 18-135 for the DA* 18-135 and now your D600 is $2500 more and the D800 is $3800 more. You can play this game forever.

Every lens on an D800 is going to give you more resolution than your K-5, all the D600 give you is a bit more resolution and FF's different FF DoF .

Funny how two people can look at the same numbers and come to totally different conclusions. You didn't put in the Nikkor 14-24 that last portion of the Trinity which everyone on a Nikon seems to covet. another 2 K, and compared to the Sigma 8-16 (not available on FF) another $1200 difference. You also rather brazenly compare the FA 31 which is on some experts best three lenses of all time list to a Nikkor 50. Get the DA 35 2.4, and you've knocked another $1000 off the Pentax price.

Just with those two things 18-135 instead of 50-135, DA 35 2.4 instead of 31 Ltd, and I've taken $2000 off your price...dropped the price of the Pentax system to less than half the D800 price and almost half the D600 price.

I'm not saying you want to do that... but it really doesn't make any sense to compare one of the best lenses ever made to a Nikkor 50 1/4G. Now maybe those are the exact systems you would buy, and that's good for you, so for you the comparison is valid. I'm not sure how many people your selections are relevant for, certainly not for me. Especially when you substitute an f4 lens for an F2.8 lens in an area where those 70-200 2.8s are probably one of the most popular lenses on FF.

The arguement for FF to me has always been more resolution, not better price. I'm not seeing anything here that changes my mind.

[pxpaulx]

hmmmm, you have the Pentax system after the substitutions at $1500 less than a D600 and the D800 $2800 more. YOu do realize that a lot of people don't spend $1500 on thier whole system. ANd to get the systems that close you traded the a 2.8 70-200 for a 70-200 f4 lens....OK now trade the Pentax 18-135 for the DA* 18-135 and now your D600 is $2500 more and the D800 is $3800 more. You can play this game forever.

Every lens on an D800 is going to give you more resolution than your K-5, all the D600 give you is a bit more resolution and FF's different FF DoF .

Funny how two people can look at the same numbers and come to totally different conclusions. You didn't put in the Nikkor 14-24 that last portion of the Trinity which everyone on a Nikon seems to covet. another 2 K, and compared to the Sigma 8-16 (not available on FF) another $1200 difference. You also rather brazenly compare the FA 31 which is on some experts best three lenses of all time list to a Nikkor 50. Get the DA 35 2.4, and you've knocked another $1000 off the Pentax price.

Just with those two things 18-135 instead of 50-135, DA 35 2.4 instead of 31 Ltd, and I've taken $2000 off your price...dropped the price of the Pentax system to less than half the D800 price and almost half the D600 price.

I'm not saying you want to do that... but it really doesn't make any sense to compare one of the best lenses ever made to a Nikkor 50 1/4G. Now maybe those are the exact systems you would buy, and that's good for you, so for you the comparison is valid. I'm not sure how many people your selections are relevant for, certainly not for me. Especially when you substitute an f4 lens for an F2.8 lens in an area where those 70-200 2.8s are probably one of the most popular lenses on FF.

The argument for FF to me has always been more resolution, not better price. I'm not seeing anything here that changes my mind.

As a long time Pentax user myself, I've always had a pretty keen eye for a good value. If you want to discuss pricing, how about this? (there are 2 sides to every coin!)

Nikon Refurbished D600 (cameta or adorama) - $1,600
Nikkor 20mm F2.8 AF - $550 ($350-450 used from Adorama) - just as fast/faster and wider than both the 14mm and 15mm, and relatively compact.
Nikon 50mm 1.8 G - $217
Nikon 85mm 1.8 G - $496 (they run sales 1-2 times/year - I bought mine for $396 from adorama in March)
Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR micro - $899 - or sub sigma EX DG OS for $769
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC - $1,300 (non-OS sigma $824)
sigma EX DG OS 70-200 2.8 - $1,250 (tamron VC $1,500 - non VC $769)

I've dailed a full kit price back to as low as $6,182 - you could knock another $1,200 off that going with an older Sigma or Tamron non-OS/VC 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 lens as well - even more if you bought used (and a much bigger used market is available).

[normhead]

As a long time Pentax user myself, I've always had a pretty keen eye for a good value. If you want to discuss pricing, how about this? (there are 2 sides to every coin!)

Nikon Refurbished D600 (cameta or adorama) - $1,600
Nikkor 20mm F2.8 AF - $550 ($350-450 used from Adorama) - just as fast/faster and wider than both the 14mm and 15mm, and relatively compact.
Nikon 50mm 1.8 G - $217
Nikon 85mm 1.8 G - $496 (they run sales 1-2 times/year - I bought mine for $396 from adorama in March)
Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR micro - $899 - or sub sigma EX DG OS for $769
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC - $1,300 (non-OS sigma $824)
sigma EX DG OS 70-200 2.8 - $1,250 (tamron VC $1,500 - non VC $769)

I've dailed a full kit price back to as low as $6,182 - you could knock another $1,200 off that going with an older Sigma or Tamron non-OS/VC 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 lens as well - even more if you bought used (and a much bigger used market is available).

As I said, it's a game we can play forever.... but bottom line I cover 8mm to 250 mm, equivalent to 12-400 mm, for a lot cheaper than you can with a Nikon and similar quality glass. SIgma 8-16, Tamron 17-50 , DA*60-250 and a K-5 for under 4k, all top quality, off the shelf in production glass. The 17-50 and 60-250 both outperform many of the primes they compete with.

Throw in my second hand 21 ltd, Tamron 90 macro and A-400 and 1.7 TC, and my 35 1.4.. and I've paid less for may basic kit than you have and I've taken my range all the way out to 680mm, shake reduced and auto-focused if I choose, with 18-250 covered by WR lenses.

We can go on forever hypothetically, but that's what I shoot, and I don't see how I could replace it with equivalent SR glass for under 15k in an FF mount.

[joe.penn]

lol, you guys would die if I told you what I payed for three of my used nikon mount lenses...

[normhead]

As a long time Pentax user myself, I've always had a pretty keen eye for a good value. If you want to discuss pricing, how about this? (there are 2 sides to every coin!)

Nikon Refurbished D600 (cameta or adorama) - $1,600
Nikkor 20mm F2.8 AF - $550 ($350-450 used from Adorama) - just as fast/faster and wider than both the 14mm and 15mm, and relatively compact.
Nikon 50mm 1.8 G - $217
Nikon 85mm 1.8 G - $496 (they run sales 1-2 times/year - I bought mine for $396 from adorama in March)
Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR micro - $899 - or sub sigma EX DG OS for $769
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC - $1,300 (non-OS sigma $824)
sigma EX DG OS 70-200 2.8 - $1,250 (tamron VC $1,500 - non VC $769)

I've dailed a full kit price back to as low as $6,182 - you could knock another $1,200 off that going with an older Sigma or Tamron non-OS/VC 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 lens as well - even more if you bought used (and a much bigger used market is available).

lol, you guys would die if I told you what I payed for three of my used nikon mount lenses...

Ya, I probably would.. something in my nature means, I always call 5 second after the guy who buys it.

Bottom line for me....
Basic kit... K-5 $800
DA 18-135 -$400
DA* 60-250 1600
Sigma 8-16 - $600

$3500 covers an FF equivalent 12-400 mm.

Used items
A-400 $450
1.7 TC $350
21 ltd $450
Tamron 90 macro $250
35 2.4 $200
FA 50 1.7 $500

My entire kit for Approx $6000

The equivalent in FF would be 12 mm to 1020 coverage, all with shake reduction, only the A-400 are auto-focus and 680 mm the TC adds auto-focus to it.

OK someone tell me how I can get from 12 to 1020 in an FF system all lenses with shake reduction 24 to 400 inclusive with WR and a top end of 1020mm for anything like that kind of money.

If someone can do that, no one will be happier than me,

[pxpaulx]

lol, you guys would die if I told you what I payed for three of my used nikon mount lenses...

you can't tempt me like that, I need to know now!

Examples for me...16-28 2.8 tokina for $649 new, AF tamron 300mm f2.8 mint older version for $749...tamron 1.4x AF TC for $35 to use with it (same one that runs $200+ in K mount!)

[pxpaulx]

As I said, it's a game we can play forever.... but bottom line I cover 8mm to 250 mm, equivalent to 12-400 mm, for a lot cheaper than you can with a Nikon and similar quality glass. SIgma 8-16, Tamron 17-50 , DA*60-250 and a K-5 for under 4k, all top quality, off the shelf in production glass. The 17-50 and 60-250 both outperform many of the primes they compete with.

Throw in my second hand 21 ltd, Tamron 90 macro and A-400 and 1.7 TC, and my 35 1.4.. and I've paid less for may basic kit than you have and I've taken my range all the way out to 680mm, shake reduced and auto-focused if I choose, with 18-250 covered by WR lenses.

We can go on forever hypothetically, but that's what I shoot, and I don't see how I could replace it with equivalent SR glass for under 15k in an FF mount.

Of course I totally agree, everyone is satisfied at a different level. I'll always own a Pentax just for the 15mm ltd if everything else is sold. Same with Micro 4/3 and the panasonic 20mm, rokinon 7.5mm fisheye. In the end for me it is about using a nice lens and getting a photograph that you can appreciate, I don't need to satisfy anyone but myself (and that goes for everyone!).

[joe.penn]

you can't tempt me like that, I need to know now!

Ya, I probably would.. something in my nature means, I always call 5 second after the guy who buys it.

These three were used:

Sigma 300 2.8 DG (New Condition): $1,400
Sigma 100~300 f/4 (Good Condition): $400
Nikon 85mm 1.8 D (Near Mint): $160

Hard to say which one was the best deal, all three are incredible lenses with all three sharp as a tack wide open, no stopping down needed for any of those. I have in the past got some pretty good deals on pentax glass but nothing as good as any of the ones listed above.

[Rondec]

As a long time Pentax user myself, I've always had a pretty keen eye for a good value. If you want to discuss pricing, how about this? (there are 2 sides to every coin!)

Nikon Refurbished D600 (cameta or adorama) - $1,600
Nikkor 20mm F2.8 AF - $550 ($350-450 used from Adorama) - just as fast/faster and wider than both the 14mm and 15mm, and relatively compact.
Nikon 50mm 1.8 G - $217
Nikon 85mm 1.8 G - $496 (they run sales 1-2 times/year - I bought mine for $396 from adorama in March)
Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR micro - $899 - or sub sigma EX DG OS for $769
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC - $1,300 (non-OS sigma $824)
sigma EX DG OS 70-200 2.8 - $1,250 (tamron VC $1,500 - non VC $769)

I've dailed a full kit price back to as low as $6,182 - you could knock another $1,200 off that going with an older Sigma or Tamron non-OS/VC 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 lens as well - even more if you bought used (and a much bigger used market is available).

I hate discussions that deal with used prices, or refurb cameras. I do buy used lenses at times, but I don't trust camera refurbs.

[normhead]

These three were used:

Sigma 300 2.8 DG (New Condition): $1,400
Sigma 100~300 f/4 (Good Condition): $400
Nikon 85mm 1.8 D (Near Mint): $160

Hard to say which one was the best deal, all three are incredible lenses with all three sharp as a tack wide open, no stopping down needed for any of those. I have in the past got some pretty good deals on pentax glass but nothing as good as any of the ones listed above.

Did I ever mention I really, really hate you... Sigma 300 2.8 for $1400, it's enough to make a grown man weep. You didn't buy those lenses you stole them... I'm gonna phone the police and tell them you obviously took advantage of someone who was mentally incapacitated. , did I mention your mothers ugly and wears army boots.?..... OK I feel better now....

Great luck, good for you...

[joe.penn]

did I mention your mothers ugly and wears army boots.?

Actually, I have heard that one before...