Seeking opinions on switching systems (Pentax to Nikon)

dylansalt · 03-19-2009, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by 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.

Thanks - yes you are quite correct - the day was thinly overcast hence fill flash (dialled to -2)

Dylan

rfortson · 03-19-2009, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by 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.

First, nice portrait, Dylan.

Ash, I agree with you about the kit lens. I just bought a *ist DL kit with the kit lens, and I had forgotten (1) how nice the DL is for a small SLR, and (2) how nice and light the kit lens is.

jct us101 · 03-19-2009, 09:04 AM

You forgot (3) how it equally compares to a Canon 5D + 17-40L

Pentaxke · 03-19-2009, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

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.

Euh,

Marc, that was not me, if you look at the post above...

I was only saying that Nikkors are not worth the trouble, sth I learned by just buying a Fuji...

Marc Sabatella · 03-19-2009, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxke

Marc, that was not me, if you look at the post above...

You're right, of course - I guess the letters "ke" in both of your names confused me :-)

Quote:

I was only saying that Nikkors are not worth the trouble

I have no personal experience to contradict this, but I've seen enough favorable reviews of Nikkor lenses to suggest that they do make some really good ones and some less good ones, just like Pentax or anyone else.

al_undy · 03-19-2009, 01:45 PM

Take a flying leap! Otherwise stick with what you know. Are you that good?

benjikan · 03-19-2009, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by lapeen

My best friend recently got a nikon d90 and I am in love. She is able to get so many shots that I could never get with my k100d. I had been feeling frustrated and limited with my camera even before she got the d90 as my daughter has become a cheerleader and my camera REALLY struggles in the low/crappy light of school auditoriums and I have to either accept a lot of grain or motion blur. Examples Our family and friends also do a lot of evening activities and hanging out and the d90 captures those moments with ease. Last night she had her ISO at 2000 and the pics were bright and crisp and not at all grainy.

And I know that it's gimmicky and a bit of a controversial "issue" ...but it was pretty fun last night to be able to snap great photos, and then when someone was attempting to dance like Beyonce, be able to switch over to video and take a little movie

The movie thing is NOT a deal breaker for me... but it is kind of fun!

I pondered going for the k20d so that I could keep my lenses... and I do love being a Pentaxian, but I have been told that the k20d won't make me happy and do what I want it to either. Looking at the ISO tests on DPreview and other sites seems to confirm this.

I know that none of us have crystal balls... but as I am no urgent rush to get new gear, do you think I should wait awhile and hope that Pentax comes out with a camera that makes me squeal

Ummmmm.........Do you honestly think that if you get a Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic or Pentax or what ever, that it will have an effect on the outcome of your images?

All of the above brands are quite capable in cataloging a photo and all are quite good at 1600 iso for a A3 print.

If you feel psychologically more comfortable with a Nikon, go for it. You don't want to upset your comfort zone.

Ben

Pentaxviking · 03-19-2009, 03:29 PM

K20D is way better camera than the D90 no question about it

GaryML · 03-19-2009, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxke

Do you mean the freakin' expenssive but mediocre 17-55? Or by any chance the still freakin' expenssive but still more mediocre 18-200...? Like I said above, I have tried various Nikkors now, and every each and one of them peforms, optically speaking, less than their Pentax counterpart... Maybe I haven't tried enough? Maybe I had lemons (in which case Nikon has a serious problem in the QC department...?)

I finally set for a 16-85 and a 60 micro Nikkor, but please, spare me the phrase 'Nikkors are best', as a DA 16-45 and FA 50 macro easily outperforms the two...

This is simply ridiculous. I've owned both Pentax and Nikon SLR systems. I had two different Pentax DSLRs, three Pentax film bodies and over two dozen Pentax lenses over the past twenty years including the original M* lens, DA* lenses, DA Limited lenses, FA Limited lenses, etc. I currently own a Nikon D80 and a D300, and seven Nikon lenses including the 17-55mm f2.8, the 70-200mm f2.8, the 60mm f2.8 D Micro-Nikkor, the 105mm f2.8 VR Micro-Nikkor, etc.

Both the Pentax and Nikon lenses produce fine images. The Nikon 60mm macro produces images that are just as good as my Pentax DFA 50mm macro; the Nikon 105mm macro produces images just as good as my Pentax 100mm smc-A macro; my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 DX outperforms my Pentax DA 16-45 f4 in just about every respect: one full stop faster, far less CA, faster and quieter AF, better contrast and color saturation. The Nikon 70-200mm VR is simply in a class by itself: it outperforms my Pentax DA* 50-135mm and has 50% more reach. Yes, the Nikon gear is more expensive and heavier to carry. But it doesn't disappoint in either optical or mechanical performance, especially the pro level gear.

I do like the Pentax Limited prime lenses. and a combination of the new 15mm, the 35mm Macro, and the 70mm would be ideal for travel photography. Nikon doesn't have anything that matches that level of performance in a compact, light but still well-constructed package. I lighten the load by leaving the f2.8 zooms at home when traveling, but I miss the Pentax compact size. (Actually, my Pentax LX camera and three prime lenses is what I take to travel as light as possible.)

Pentax and Nikon both make some very fine lenses and cameras. Your blanket assertion that every Nikon lens is inferior is contrary to the experience of millions of other users. If you can't get good results with any Nikon lens, then it clearly indicates that there is something wrong: either with your old Fuji S3 camera or with the operator.

Originally posted by Pentaxke

(I am only speaking of optical quality - sharpness, vignetting, CA, ed all - because I couldn't care less how fast the thing focusses...)

That's fine for you. However, those of us who shoot sports action and indoor events need fast and accurate AF. When I switched from Pentax to Nikon, it made a huge difference. Instead of about half of my sports action photos being out of focus with Pentax, only about 5% are out of focus with Nikon. Many photos from school events and concerts were out of focus with Pentax; almost every picture from school events and concerts with the Nikon are in focus. Better AF (and higher frame rates), better noise performance at high ISO, and superior TTL flash performance are the areas where current Nikon DSLRs outperform current Pentax DSLRs.

Pentaxke · 03-20-2009, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by GaryML

This is simply ridiculous. I've owned both Pentax and Nikon SLR systems. I had two different Pentax DSLRs, three Pentax film bodies and over two dozen Pentax lenses over the past twenty years including the original M* lens, DA* lenses, DA Limited lenses, FA Limited lenses, etc. I currently own a Nikon D80 and a D300, and seven Nikon lenses including the 17-55mm f2.8, the 70-200mm f2.8, the 60mm f2.8 D Micro-Nikkor, the 105mm f2.8 VR Micro-Nikkor, etc.

Both the Pentax and Nikon lenses produce fine images. The Nikon 60mm macro produces images that are just as good as my Pentax DFA 50mm macro;

Well, *nearly* as good, with a bit of CA to bode. Actually, this is, by now, the only Nikkor that I am confortable with. But even then, the FA 50 macro is better by a margin.

Originally posted by GaryML

the Nikon 105mm macro produces images just as good as my Pentax 100mm smc-A macro;

No experience with the Nikkor 105. Then again, the price and (more importantly) the dimensions are such I wouldn't even consider it...

Originally posted by GaryML

my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 DX outperforms my Pentax DA 16-45 f4 in just about every respect: one full stop faster, far less CA, faster and quieter AF, better contrast and color saturation.

Define color saturation...
In fact, this has been a discussion over on another (Dutch) discussion forum, where I asked what I was doing wrong. I have used two different copies and while I admit that 'it's not bad', it certainly isn't € >1000,- worth optical performing either. It has better CA and that is about it, al the rest is in favour of the Pentax. Like I said: I couldn't care less about focus speed, because that doesn't make it a stellar performer. I am not going to make that whole discussion again, suffice it to say that people over there where first aggressive against me because I had the guts to question a Nikkor, but after the long discussion we put the 17-55 against the Sigma 17-70, which was an easy homerun for the Sigma...

Originally posted by GaryML

The Nikon 70-200mm VR is simply in a class by itself: it outperforms my Pentax DA* 50-135mm and has 50% more reach. Yes, the Nikon gear is more expensive and heavier to carry. But it doesn't disappoint in either optical or mechanical performance, especially the pro level gear.

I haven't got any experience with the DA* and if you are happy with the 70-200 VR, all the better for you, but a stellar performer the Nikkor is not...

Originally posted by GaryML

Pentax and Nikon both make some very fine lenses and cameras.

Amen to that...

Originally posted by GaryML

Your blanket assertion that every Nikon lens is inferior is contrary to the experience of millions of other users. If you can't get good results with any Nikon lens, then it clearly indicates that there is something wrong: either with your old Fuji S3 camera or with the operator.

I didn't say that *all* Nikkors are bad, I was just saying that I am not impressed about the optical performance of the Nikkors I used... Big difference. On the other hand: the plain fact that people are happy with the Nikkor 18-200, leaves me to think that maybe my expectations are too high. Then again: why wasn't I disappointed with none of the Pentaxes...?

joele · 03-20-2009, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxke

No experience with the Nikkor 105. Then again, the price and (more importantly) the dimensions are such I wouldn't even consider it...

Owned it sold it and much prefer the Sigma 150mm macro, though I prefer that over any Pentax options too.

Quote:

I had the guts to question a Nikkor, but after the long discussion we put the 17-55 against the Sigma 17-70, which was an easy homerun for the Sigma...

Well I have used the Nikkor and owned the Sigma 17-70 in two mounts and currently use the Tamron 17-50/2.8.. personally for the money the Tamron tops the lot as it is on par with the nikon optically IMO, much cheaper but lower build quality.. The Sigma is a lovely lens but behind both optically near wide open (which is what matters as most lenses are good at f8).. To be fair I would put the Tamron and Nikon ahead of the Pentax 16-50/2.8, but maybe my shooting buddy and I both got bad samples so hard to say (though that is a problem in itself).. I am just a big fan of the Tamron at the end of the day for that focal length and apeture, though Christie (the other half) still uses and swears by the Sigma 17-70mm.

Quote:

On the other hand: the plain fact that people are happy with the Nikkor 18-200, leaves me to think that maybe my expectations are too high. Then again: why wasn't I disappointed with none of the Pentaxes...?

meh, people are happy with the Sigma and tamron super zooms too, just different requirements..

Comparing almost any camera or lens from one brand to the other you will find advantages and disadvantages of each choice for different people..

GaryML · 03-21-2009, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxke

On the other hand: the plain fact that people are happy with the Nikkor 18-200, leaves me to think that maybe my expectations are too high. Then again: why wasn't I disappointed with none of the Pentaxes...?

I never cared for super-zooms, as there are too many compromises in performance. The Nikon 18-200 is no exception: lots of distortion at the wide end, soft at the long end, and slow, slow, slow. But if you like the convenience of this sort of lens then the Nikon probably performs well in it this class. "People are happy" with the Pentax/Tamron super-zooms also, and they have the same performance compromises.

If you are displeased with your Nikon lenses, why not just sell them and get something else (e.g., Sigma in Nikon mount), or dump the Fuji body also and get Pentax, Canon, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, or whatever you want? There are lots of alternatives, and selling camera gear is easy in this Internet age. When I was unhappy with Pentax, I simply sold the equipment with only a modest loss and moved on. (I also tested the Nikon gear before selling the Pentax, so I wasn't just jumping around at random.)

jedperkins · 03-22-2009, 07:35 PM

Maybe this question is better asked on a Nikon forum than on a Pentax forum.

OregonJim · 03-22-2009, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxke

On the other hand: the plain fact that people are happy with the Nikkor 18-200, leaves me to think that maybe my expectations are too high. Then again: why wasn't I disappointed with none of the Pentaxes...?

That's funny - I had pretty much the same observation to make, but you beat me to it! The Nikkor 18-200 was the last lens I bought before switching back to Pentax. I was less than impressed with it, though the wife is happy enough with it now. I've seen both good and bad reviews of nearly ever lens I've ever researched, regardless of brand. It's when they're *all* good (or all bad) that I start getting suspicious...

ftpaddict · 03-23-2009, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by jedperkins

Maybe this question is better asked on a Nikon forum than on a Pentax forum.

They've never even heard of Pentax.

03-19-2009, 03:29 PM	#203
Pentaxviking New Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Bodø Photos: Gallery Posts: 5	D90 vs K20D K20D is way better camera than the D90 no question about it

03-19-2009, 10:03 PM	#204
GaryML Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 441	Originally posted by Pentaxke Do you mean the freakin' expenssive but mediocre 17-55? Or by any chance the still freakin' expenssive but still more mediocre 18-200...? Like I said above, I have tried various Nikkors now, and every each and one of them peforms, optically speaking, less than their Pentax counterpart... Maybe I haven't tried enough? Maybe I had lemons (in which case Nikon has a serious problem in the QC department...?) I finally set for a 16-85 and a 60 micro Nikkor, but please, spare me the phrase 'Nikkors are best', as a DA 16-45 and FA 50 macro easily outperforms the two... This is simply ridiculous. I've owned both Pentax and Nikon SLR systems. I had two different Pentax DSLRs, three Pentax film bodies and over two dozen Pentax lenses over the past twenty years including the original M* lens, DA* lenses, DA Limited lenses, FA Limited lenses, etc. I currently own a Nikon D80 and a D300, and seven Nikon lenses including the 17-55mm f2.8, the 70-200mm f2.8, the 60mm f2.8 D Micro-Nikkor, the 105mm f2.8 VR Micro-Nikkor, etc. Both the Pentax and Nikon lenses produce fine images. The Nikon 60mm macro produces images that are just as good as my Pentax DFA 50mm macro; the Nikon 105mm macro produces images just as good as my Pentax 100mm smc-A macro; my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 DX outperforms my Pentax DA 16-45 f4 in just about every respect: one full stop faster, far less CA, faster and quieter AF, better contrast and color saturation. The Nikon 70-200mm VR is simply in a class by itself: it outperforms my Pentax DA* 50-135mm and has 50% more reach. Yes, the Nikon gear is more expensive and heavier to carry. But it doesn't disappoint in either optical or mechanical performance, especially the pro level gear. I do like the Pentax Limited prime lenses. and a combination of the new 15mm, the 35mm Macro, and the 70mm would be ideal for travel photography. Nikon doesn't have anything that matches that level of performance in a compact, light but still well-constructed package. I lighten the load by leaving the f2.8 zooms at home when traveling, but I miss the Pentax compact size. (Actually, my Pentax LX camera and three prime lenses is what I take to travel as light as possible.) Pentax and Nikon both make some very fine lenses and cameras. Your blanket assertion that every Nikon lens is inferior is contrary to the experience of millions of other users. If you can't get good results with *any* Nikon lens, then it clearly indicates that there is something wrong: either with your old Fuji S3 camera or with the operator. Originally posted by Pentaxke (I am only speaking of optical quality - sharpness, vignetting, CA, ed all - because I couldn't care less how fast the thing focusses...) That's fine for you. However, those of us who shoot sports action and indoor events need fast and accurate AF. When I switched from Pentax to Nikon, it made a huge difference. Instead of about half of my sports action photos being out of focus with Pentax, only about 5% are out of focus with Nikon. Many photos from school events and concerts were out of focus with Pentax; almost every picture from school events and concerts with the Nikon are in focus. Better AF (and higher frame rates), better noise performance at high ISO, and superior TTL flash performance are the areas where current Nikon DSLRs outperform current Pentax DSLRs. Last edited by GaryML; 03-19-2009 at 10:34 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Equivalent of Pentax primes on Canon and Nikon FF systems	dexmus	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	10-01-2010 11:16 PM
I'm Switching to Nikon . . .	Blue	Pentax DSLR Discussion	23	06-27-2010 12:54 AM
For Pentax users who changed systems or thinking about switching	rustynail925	Pentax DSLR Discussion	34	03-04-2010 01:22 AM
Nikon and Pentax - Question on Flash systems comparison	VAV	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	9	08-13-2009 07:24 AM
ProMaster 70-300 - seeking Image quality opinions	RoxnDox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	06-26-2007 12:38 PM

03-19-2009, 02:21 AM	#196
dylansalt Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Durban, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,052	Originally posted by 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. Thanks - yes you are quite correct - the day was thinly overcast hence fill flash (dialled to -2) Dylan

03-19-2009, 08:49 AM	#197
rfortson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,129	Originally posted by 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. First, nice portrait, Dylan. Ash, I agree with you about the kit lens. I just bought a *ist DL kit with the kit lens, and I had forgotten (1) how nice the DL is for a small SLR, and (2) how nice and light the kit lens is.

03-19-2009, 09:04 AM	#198
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	You forgot (3) how it equally compares to a Canon 5D + 17-40L

03-19-2009, 01:25 PM	#199
Pentaxke Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 476	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella 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. Euh, Marc, that was not me, if you look at the post above... I was only saying that Nikkors are not worth the trouble, sth I learned by just buying a Fuji...

03-19-2009, 01:31 PM	#200
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Pentaxke Marc, that was not me, if you look at the post above... You're right, of course - I guess the letters "ke" in both of your names confused me :-) Quote: I was only saying that Nikkors are not worth the trouble I have no personal experience to contradict this, but I've seen enough favorable reviews of Nikkor lenses to suggest that they do make some really good ones and some less good ones, just like Pentax or anyone else.

03-19-2009, 01:45 PM	#201
al_undy Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: OH, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 77	Take a flying leap! Otherwise stick with what you know. Are you that good?

03-19-2009, 02:16 PM	#202
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Originally posted by lapeen My best friend recently got a nikon d90 and I am in love. She is able to get so many shots that I could never get with my k100d. I had been feeling frustrated and limited with my camera even before she got the d90 as my daughter has become a cheerleader and my camera REALLY struggles in the low/crappy light of school auditoriums and I have to either accept a lot of grain or motion blur. Examples Our family and friends also do a lot of evening activities and hanging out and the d90 captures those moments with ease. Last night she had her ISO at 2000 and the pics were bright and crisp and not at all grainy. And I know that it's gimmicky and a bit of a controversial "issue" ...but it was pretty fun last night to be able to snap great photos, and then when someone was attempting to dance like Beyonce, be able to switch over to video and take a little movie The movie thing is NOT a deal breaker for me... but it is kind of fun! I pondered going for the k20d so that I could keep my lenses... and I do love being a Pentaxian, but I have been told that the k20d won't make me happy and do what I want it to either. Looking at the ISO tests on DPreview and other sites seems to confirm this. I know that none of us have crystal balls... but as I am no urgent rush to get new gear, do you think I should wait awhile and hope that Pentax comes out with a camera that makes me squeal Ummmmm.........Do you honestly think that if you get a Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic or Pentax or what ever, that it will have an effect on the outcome of your images? All of the above brands are quite capable in cataloging a photo and all are quite good at 1600 iso for a A3 print. If you feel psychologically more comfortable with a Nikon, go for it. You don't want to upset your comfort zone. Ben

03-20-2009, 03:15 AM	#205
Pentaxke Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 476	Originally posted by GaryML This is simply ridiculous. I've owned both Pentax and Nikon SLR systems. I had two different Pentax DSLRs, three Pentax film bodies and over two dozen Pentax lenses over the past twenty years including the original M* lens, DA* lenses, DA Limited lenses, FA Limited lenses, etc. I currently own a Nikon D80 and a D300, and seven Nikon lenses including the 17-55mm f2.8, the 70-200mm f2.8, the 60mm f2.8 D Micro-Nikkor, the 105mm f2.8 VR Micro-Nikkor, etc. Both the Pentax and Nikon lenses produce fine images. The Nikon 60mm macro produces images that are just as good as my Pentax DFA 50mm macro; Well, nearly as good, with a bit of CA to bode. Actually, this is, by now, the only Nikkor that I am confortable with. But even then, the FA 50 macro is better by a margin. Originally posted by GaryML the Nikon 105mm macro produces images just as good as my Pentax 100mm smc-A macro; No experience with the Nikkor 105. Then again, the price and (more importantly) the dimensions are such I wouldn't even consider it... Originally posted by GaryML my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 DX outperforms my Pentax DA 16-45 f4 in just about every respect: one full stop faster, far less CA, faster and quieter AF, better contrast and color saturation. Define color saturation... In fact, this has been a discussion over on another (Dutch) discussion forum, where I asked what I was doing wrong. I have used two different copies and while I admit that 'it's not bad', it certainly isn't € >1000,- worth optical performing either. It has better CA and that is about it, al the rest is in favour of the Pentax. Like I said: I couldn't care less about focus speed, because that doesn't make it a stellar performer. I am not going to make that whole discussion again, suffice it to say that people over there where first aggressive against me because I had the guts to question a Nikkor, but after the long discussion we put the 17-55 against the Sigma 17-70, which was an easy homerun for the Sigma... Originally posted by GaryML The Nikon 70-200mm VR is simply in a class by itself: it outperforms my Pentax DA* 50-135mm and has 50% more reach. Yes, the Nikon gear is more expensive and heavier to carry. But it doesn't disappoint in either optical or mechanical performance, especially the pro level gear. I haven't got any experience with the DA* and if you are happy with the 70-200 VR, all the better for you, but a stellar performer the Nikkor is not... Originally posted by GaryML Pentax and Nikon both make some very fine lenses and cameras. Amen to that... Originally posted by GaryML Your blanket assertion that every Nikon lens is inferior is contrary to the experience of millions of other users. If you can't get good results with *any* Nikon lens, then it clearly indicates that there is something wrong: either with your old Fuji S3 camera or with the operator. I didn't say that all Nikkors are bad, I was just saying that I am not impressed about the optical performance of the Nikkors I used... Big difference. On the other hand: the plain fact that people are happy with the Nikkor 18-200, leaves me to think that maybe my expectations are too high. Then again: why wasn't I disappointed with none of the Pentaxes...?

03-20-2009, 06:36 PM	#206
joele Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,308	Originally posted by Pentaxke No experience with the Nikkor 105. Then again, the price and (more importantly) the dimensions are such I wouldn't even consider it... Owned it sold it and much prefer the Sigma 150mm macro, though I prefer that over any Pentax options too. Quote: I had the guts to question a Nikkor, but after the long discussion we put the 17-55 against the Sigma 17-70, which was an easy homerun for the Sigma... Well I have used the Nikkor and owned the Sigma 17-70 in two mounts and currently use the Tamron 17-50/2.8.. personally for the money the Tamron tops the lot as it is on par with the nikon optically IMO, much cheaper but lower build quality.. The Sigma is a lovely lens but behind both optically near wide open (which is what matters as most lenses are good at f8).. To be fair I would put the Tamron and Nikon ahead of the Pentax 16-50/2.8, but maybe my shooting buddy and I both got bad samples so hard to say (though that is a problem in itself).. I am just a big fan of the Tamron at the end of the day for that focal length and apeture, though Christie (the other half) still uses and swears by the Sigma 17-70mm. Quote: On the other hand: the plain fact that people are happy with the Nikkor 18-200, leaves me to think that maybe my expectations are too high. Then again: why wasn't I disappointed with none of the Pentaxes...? meh, people are happy with the Sigma and tamron super zooms too, just different requirements.. Comparing almost any camera or lens from one brand to the other you will find advantages and disadvantages of each choice for different people..

03-21-2009, 09:14 AM	#207
GaryML Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 441	Originally posted by Pentaxke On the other hand: the plain fact that people are happy with the Nikkor 18-200, leaves me to think that maybe my expectations are too high. Then again: why wasn't I disappointed with none of the Pentaxes...? I never cared for super-zooms, as there are too many compromises in performance. The Nikon 18-200 is no exception: lots of distortion at the wide end, soft at the long end, and slow, slow, slow. But if you like the convenience of this sort of lens then the Nikon probably performs well in it this class. "People are happy" with the Pentax/Tamron super-zooms also, and they have the same performance compromises. If you are displeased with your Nikon lenses, why not just sell them and get something else (e.g., Sigma in Nikon mount), or dump the Fuji body also and get Pentax, Canon, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, or whatever you want? There are lots of alternatives, and selling camera gear is easy in this Internet age. When I was unhappy with Pentax, I simply sold the equipment with only a modest loss and moved on. (I also tested the Nikon gear before selling the Pentax, so I wasn't just jumping around at random.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-22-2009, 07:35 PM	#208
jedperkins Junior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Boulder, CO, USA Posts: 28	Maybe this question is better asked on a Nikon forum than on a Pentax forum.

03-22-2009, 11:21 PM	#209
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	Originally posted by Pentaxke On the other hand: the plain fact that people are happy with the Nikkor 18-200, leaves me to think that maybe my expectations are too high. Then again: why wasn't I disappointed with none of the Pentaxes...? That's funny - I had pretty much the same observation to make, but you beat me to it! The Nikkor 18-200 was the last lens I bought before switching back to Pentax. I was less than impressed with it, though the wife is happy enough with it now. I've seen both good and bad reviews of nearly ever lens I've ever researched, regardless of brand. It's when they're all good (or all bad) that I start getting suspicious...

03-23-2009, 01:19 AM	#210
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	Originally posted by jedperkins Maybe this question is better asked on a Nikon forum than on a Pentax forum. They've never even heard of Pentax.