[jct us101]

You know, I'm not quite sure.

*wanders off*

[pingflood]

No the Canon 24-70mm is not very good glass, its mediocre. The Sigma 24-70mm hsm looks like it will be better.

Do you really want to pay $1700 to have an image stabilized 70-200 f2.8?

Having owned a Canon 5D 2 there is a shortage of good Canon glass below 70mm.

It makes you realize just how good Pentax glass is and how useful in-body stabilization is.

The Nikon D90 is a smudge machine, I suppose image quality is not so important now that autofocus speed is the must-have.

Yeah, you owned a 5D2 for... three days?

Problems with 5D Mk 2 [Page 1]: Canon EOS-1D / 1Ds / 5D Forum: Digital Photography Review

Sorry for googling you, but after that 24-70 comment I was wondering how much experience you really had with the gear you're putting down.

[Marc Sabatella]

Yes, the Pentax 12-24 is really a Tokina in other brands. Still highly regarded, but definitely a Tokina

You might want to check your sources on this. Tokina manufactures the lenses they put out under their name, but the lenses were developed by Pentax. That goes for the 16-50 and 50-135 too. Pentax lenses through and through, but Tokina does manufacture versions of them for other mounts.

I was mainly replying to pentaxke who said all the nikon lenses he's tried have been unimpressive

I agree; that's an overgeneralization.

[jsherman999]

.

Nikon has the 28 1.4, 85 1.4, 105 f/2, 200 f/2, and 135 f/2 which are very good, and will break the bank, and frankly may not be worth the enormous price.

Almost all of their other less expensive primes are fair to mediocre, except for the brand new 35 1.8 AF-S, which is almost as good as the FA 35 f/2, the 50 1.4 and 1.8's, which are almost as good as the FA 50 1.4 and FA 50 1.7. They don't have anything like the limiteds, especially the FA limiteds - we consider them expensive, but the comparable IQ in other mounts starts at $1000 and ends at $3000. We're lucky to have the limiteds.

But they do have one less expensive prime which is exceptional - the 180 2.8 ED IF. It's probably as good as the DA* 200 f/2.8 - it's older, out of production, but built very, very well. You can get them used for $400 - $550 or so.

Here's a set of some shots.



.

[dylansalt]

.

Nikon has the 28 1.4, 85 1.4, 105 f/2, 200 f/2, and 135 f/2 which are very good, and will break the bank, and frankly may not be worth the enormous price.

Almost all of their other less expensive primes are fair to mediocre, except for the brand new 35 1.8 AF-S, which is almost as good as the FA 35 f/2, the 50 1.4 and 1.8's, which are almost as good as the FA 50 1.4 and FA 50 1.7. They don't have anything like the limiteds, especially the FA limiteds - we consider them expensive, but the comparable IQ in other mounts starts at $1000 and ends at $3000. We're lucky to have the limiteds.

But they do have one less expensive prime which is exceptional - the 180 2.8 ED IF. It's probably as good as the DA* 200 f/2.8 - it's older, out of production, but built very, very well. You can get them used for $400 - $550 or so.

Here's a set of some shots.



.

Lovely pics

Yet this was achieved with the lowly cheap Pentax kit lens



Dylan

[Pentaxke]

I'm no Nikon user, but the 14-24 if you count that is probably the best ultrawide on the market. Even a lot of Canon users are getting adapters for it. No clue about the rest of 'em though...

For Canon I can pimp the 24-70/28-70,70-200 (all 4 versions!), 100-400... some very very good glass!

Have you ever seen a 14-24 up close? More than 1 kg, and the thing is so big it is ridiculous. No way I am going to use that on a Fuji. And I didn't even talk price. Yes, it will be good, but actually I don't care, and unless you have a FF (of which I have no intrest at all) it's not a very versatile zoom...

The 24-70 Nikkor should be good too, but really, I am not going to buy me a zoom that gives me a 35-105 on a crop camera. Price is (again) very hefty too...

Maybe I was exaggerating a bit when I said that Nikon can't make good glass, because they can, but even their most expensive ones (17-55 and 70-200) can be lemons, which puts me to say that I don't believe Nikon is a premium optical company.

Like I said: I bought the Fuji S3, and I was anticipating anything (slow AF, slow buffer,
etc...) but not that I would be disappointed by the Nikkors. You could really only consider buying a Nikon if you except to use mediocre glass (18-200) or ending up paying an arm and a leg (and even then you are not certain that you buy an excellent lens.)

[Pentaxke]

You might want to check your sources on this. Tokina manufactures the lenses they put out under their name, but the lenses were developed by Pentax. That goes for the 16-50 and 50-135 too. Pentax lenses through and through, but Tokina does manufacture versions of them for other mounts.

I agree; that's an overgeneralization.

Why can't people except the obvious? It's neither developed by Pentax nor Tokina, but it's developped by *both* Pentax and Tokina...

And that is nothing to be ashamed of: Nikkor 18-55 VR and Canon 18-55 IS are both developed (and probably produced) by Cosina (a Hoya subsidiary.) Both the Zuiko's 18-180 and 70-300 are developed by Sigma and the Sony 11-18 and 18-200 (amongst others) are developed (and probably produced) by Tamron. It happens all the time...

[kenyee]

Tokina manufactures the lenses they put out under their name, but the lenses were developed by Pentax. That goes for the 16-50 and 50-135 too. Pentax lenses through and through, but Tokina does manufacture versions of them for other mounts.

With some lenses, yes it's a collaborative effort.
With ones like the 11-16/2.8, I believe it's a Tokina-only design AFAIK.
I was trying to say you can get the equivalent on other mounts, so the 12-24 isn't really Pentax specific.
At any rate, the 14-24 still appears to best both.
Again, this is not a love fest for Nikon lenses. I'm just pointing out that they do have some good glass, just as Pentax and Canon do (e.g., Canon's 70-200/4 is a standout while their 70-200/2.8 is just ok). The key is knowing what's good and what's not w/o trying all of them under LBA

[Mike Cash]

.



......This may be a contributing factor to why there is no real LBA in Nikon-land - at least, not like we have it here. Sure, they talk about their 105 1.8, 85 1.4 MF lenses, but a surprising percentage of Nikonians just shoot with their 18-200 VR kit+ zooms and leave it at that - and continue to try to find IQ salvation in The Next Body Upgrade. Or, mortgage their house to buy that $1500 17-55 f/2.8 and then go into an existential funk when their IQ has not increased five-fold along with the price of kit-upgrade.

They would never have the equivalent of - or at least I haven't seen - our "Vivitar 28 as 31ltd replacement" thread, or any of the club threads - it's not as important to them. There's the $1900 pro zooms, the $1100 pro 85 1.4 and 105 VR.....

At the monthly meetings of the photo club I joined a year ago I draw my fair share of good-natured giggles from the mostly Nikon crowd about my very cheap lenses and oddball cameras.

But among last month's submitted photos one from my ESII took third in the "scenery" category and two from my K20D (with S-M-C Takumar 105/2.8 and Tamron 28-75/2.8) took first and third in the "snapshot" category.

They may giggle at my cheap gear, but they do recognize what it is capable of.

I just giggle right along with them.

[asdf]

At the monthly meetings of the photo club I joined a year ago I draw my fair share of good-natured giggles from the mostly Nikon crowd about my very cheap lenses and oddball cameras.

But among last month's submitted photos one from my ESII took third in the "scenery" category and two from my K20D (with S-M-C Takumar 105/2.8 and Tamron 28-75/2.8) took first and third in the "snapshot" category.

They may giggle at my cheap gear, but they do recognize what it is capable of.

I just giggle right along with them.

Sheeple.

[Marc Sabatella]

Why can't people except the obvious? It's neither developed by Pentax nor Tokina, but it's developped by *both* Pentax and Tokina...

Actually, that's been a pretty hotly debated topic, with some information but mostly speculation flying in all directions. But one thing is clear: it is *not* a case of being primarily a Tokina design with jut a Pentax name slapped on, as you original post implied. that's the case of the Tamron-developed/Pentax-branded 18-250, but is pretty well known to *not* be true of any of the lenses from the Tokina partnership. No one really knows *for sure* how much input Tokina had. At most, it seems it *might* have been a 50/50 partnership, but really, most of the "evidence" seems to suggest that it really was mostly Pentax . In any case, saying the lens is "really" a Tokina is just plain false - at best, it's really "part" Tokina, and while no one knows just how big a part, the evidence seems to suggest it isn't that big a part.

It happens all the time...

Indeed, and you're right - it really doesn't matter much. But since you seemed to be "dinging" Pentax for not having anything of their own design to compete with the specific Nikon zooms you mentioned, it is important to not lump the Pentax 12-24 in with simple re-badges like the "Pentax" (really Tamron) 18-250. Whatever involvement Tokina may have had, it is clearly a VERY different role than Tamron had in the 18-250. Pentax has every right to "claim" the 12-24 as their own. And while they don't make thei own 70-200, they *do* make their own 50-135, which Nikon doesn't. And if 70-200 was a standard in the 35mm film world, then 50-135 should be in the APS-C world...

The point, again, being that your initial characterization of Nikon as producing all these great zooms while Pentax has nothing in comparison was rather misleading. The 24-70 is the only one of the three lenses you mentioned where is indeed fair to say Pentax has nothing currently available that is comparable.

[Marc Sabatella]

With some lenses, yes it's a collaborative effort.
With ones like the 11-16/2.8, I believe it's a Tokina-only design AFAIK.

That does indeed seem likely, and would probably explain why that lens is not (yet?) available for Pentax.

At any rate, the 14-24 still appears to best both.

I'm sure some reviewers see it that away, and others see it the other way. They both appear to be very good and very well-loved lenses. So I still take issue with a claim that Pentax has nothing to compete with the 14-24.

I'm just pointing out that they do have some good glass, just as Pentax and Canon do

Oh, of course. I also disagree with the poster who said Nikon's lenses were all inferior.

[Ted1212]

Yeah, you owned a 5D2 for... three days?

Problems with 5D Mk 2 [Page 1]: Canon EOS-1D / 1Ds / 5D Forum: Digital Photography Review

Sorry for googling you, but after that 24-70 comment I was wondering how much experience you really had with the gear you're putting down.

No, two weeks.

But I have owned Canon cameras for about three years and did have a 28-80L as my walkaround lens, I researched the 24-70L extensively as I considered buying it for the 5D2, if you look into it enough you'll see what I mean. You could try Photozone for starters then look further and you'll see that Photozone's comments are well founded.

[jsherman999]

Lovely pics

Yet this was achieved with the lowly cheap Pentax kit lens



Dylan

That's got to be one of the better portraits I've seen from the kit lens in a long time, nice job. It looks like perfect lighting - thin overcast, or was there a soft whitish light source or flash?


.

[Ash]

Looks like a touch of fill light with the on-board camera flash, well balanced with the background.
The kit lens really is a good performer.