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.