Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-19-2009, 09:48 AM   #76
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
Don't overlook the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8

Lots of canon owners buy an adapter out of UK to use this one lens on the eos platform: $250 an 6+month wait time.

I went one better and bought a D700 to drive mine. This lens is really a 21st century design. Sharp as primes throughout focal range. And it ran me $700 less than a Canon 14mm II 2.8 or you could say made my D700 cost me $1500 when you consider having THE BEST 14mm full frame was mandantory for me. Hands down winner for ultrawide capture is made by Nikon.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html


http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/


http://16-9.net/

And I'd point out that if circular fisheye imaging is your thing, nikon made one from 1977- 1998 that does work fine with D700 & Canon has never made one for Eos mount.

I know firsthand as this is my Nikon made ultrawide lens pair:



14-24mm 2.8 next to a 8mm 2.8





QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
After weeks of contemplation, IMO the system that is ideal with the best iso performance being the primary criteria ( to shoot at iso 3200 with available light indoors) with minimal other sacrifices is the following.

Canon 5D MKii

Canon 35mm/f1.4 USM L (For indoor available light shooting).

Canon 17-40 F4 USM L (For wide angle nature)

Canon 24-105 F4 USM L IS (For indoor flash photography)

Canon 300mm L USM IS + 1.4 TC+ cropping the 21MP (Birding)

Nikon makes excellent bodies, but the lenses cannot match. The above system will optimize high iso performance, sacrifice top IQ as compared to a K-7 and a few Pentax primes.



Last edited by Samsungian; 07-19-2009 at 10:25 AM. Reason: added image
07-20-2009, 12:24 AM   #77
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
I have the opportunity to be some what frivolous with my next purchase of a DSLR, a macro lens and a flash. Could stretch it up to 4k. (Then I can sell most of my Pentax stuff and get another ~ 1,800 k), so a total of ~5.8k. This system will have to include a ring flash and a ~100mm macro.

I have everything I want in the Pentax system, but I wouldn't mind improved high iso performance and better low light and tracking AF. I know Pentaxian's may deny but the Canon 5D MKII and Nikon D700 FF camera's will do a better job than the K-7 in both aspects. Nikon has a better flash system as well. I want a relatively compact system, so no D3, D3X, 1D, 1Ds.

But, it is down right impossible to find quality glasses with SR in either system. There are no SR replacements for DA21, F28, FA43, FA77 and F135. Even if iso is 2-3 stops better, SR gets the 2-3 stops back and it is even playing field again. Nikon doesn't have any decent mid-telephoto that is sub 2k with SR. Also, 300mm is 450mm in the APS-C pentax, and the cropped DX format in the D700 is 5mp. The 5D MKII doesn't have a built-in flash, so not really compact in real life indoor use. So, as better as they are in iso performance, and AF, the systems just doesn't come close to what I can do with pentax.

So, even though I have a budget of up to 4k and even the desire to switch systems to improve iso and AF, I just can't find a compact system that is clearly better than the Pentax K7 and my list of lenses.
It would be a shame to loose you, as you display great images, and is superb at giving critique to other photographers.
But I can easily understand the draw from the D700 and Eos 5D Mark II. They will provide improved high Iso performance, and better low light and tracking AF.
I’ve heard of other Canikon users, who would like IS/VR in their fast primes as well.

I just brought my K10 to the beach to shoot some Beachvolley, and though it is covered in sand, it is great not to worry about it all creeping in under the shell. As I do a lot of outdoor activity, compact, but high performance DSLR, is of importance to me too.








QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
When debating stabilization vs high ISO, keep in mind that stabilization only gets you so far if the subject isn't still.

Ash: I doubt the 5D trumps the K-7 by any real amount, it's the weakest performer of the Canon bodies when it comes to AF. Compare the K-7 to a 50D instead, and the 50D will probably walk all over it as far as speed, tracking, and low light focusing.

As for why people use a D700 for sports, well, you got me there. If you really need the reach I'd much rather opt for the D300. In fact, I got the 50D because my 1Ds2, good as it is, requires reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally long glass for what I want to do. Far cheaper to get a $1k body for birding than a $5-10k lens!

As to OP's point, there's a time and place for a Pentax system, just like there is for a "CaNikon" one, or a point and shoot, or a 4x5... you just have to pick the tool that fits your needs. No one system is unequivocally "better" than another.
well spoken




QuoteOriginally posted by brecklundin Quote
I prefer the flexibility of the zoom and the 300L is kinda useless on a K20D or K7, right? hehehehe....

And really the 120-300 is not that expensive, about $1200-$1800 used or around $2300 retail. For the results it gives, it is a best buy, even if expensive. Plus remember the 120-300 is a full stop faster than the Canon or even the Pentax 300mm which are both f/4.

Having used the 100-300 for so long, I could have justified keeping the 40D just for it and the 24-60. But I just don't want to deal with two systems. Last year when I was deciding on the 40D it came down to the K20D vs. the 40D. And the only thing which swayed me was the far better Live View on the 40D. Even then the IQ of the K20D was my preference over the 40D...I just like it better and could not tell you why I like it, but I do. I think because the images seem more 'creative' or better yet, less cookie cutter in appearence, each shot seems unique and I like variety. And that could easily just be me, still overall I prefer the images even over the 5D MkII...
Thanks for your input. Good to hear how someone coming from the outside, likes the system




QuoteOriginally posted by Yohan Pamudji Quote
If your absolute sticking point is IS/VR/whatever, then you're better off sticking with a brand that offers in-camera stabilization, because neither Canon nor Nikon will fill your need there. But if you're right about being able to use ISO 2-3 stops higher on Canon/Nikon and that equalizes the loss of 2-3 stops stabilization with Pentax, I would take the higher ISO all things considered. Having a higher usable max ISO allows you more flexibility than stabilization. They might cancel each other out in terms of handholdability, but you can't freeze motion with image stabilization while a higher ISO would afford you a higher shutter speed that might be enough to freeze motion.
I think the in-camera Shake Reduction, opens up for more creative use. You can capture motion, even handheld. Shooting at 1/4 sec. is not possible for me with Canikon and a prime. And sometimes their zooms will not be fast enough for the job.
I do still agree though, how the high Iso is amazing, particularly from the D700


QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
I spent some time compiling a list of lenses from Canon and from Pentax and an in-depth analysis explaining why, even though there are a *couple* of exceptions, the Pentax line is considerably less expensive than the Canon line, but I decided it was probably too long and too pedantic to be interesting. Suffice it then to say that I don't think many of your comparisons tell the whole story; as an example, Canon *does* make a 17-55 2.8, and it's $999 - and it's not an "L", while the 24-70 at Adorama is $1190. This suggests to me that a 16-50 "L" from Canon would be at least twice as much (the 24-70 is a 3x zoom, the 16-50 a 4x). The Canon 14mm f2.8 is $2020, while the Pentax one is $949. Another example - I don't think it's fair to compare a primarily polycarbonate lens (the 85 1.8) to the Limited 77 1.8, but you also can't reasonably compare it to the 85 f1.2L at $1800. Where there *are* comparable lenses, however, Canon is almost always more money.

This is not to suggest that I think Canon is bad equipment, nor that you couldn't piece together a fairly inexpensive system. I quite like them, and I shot Canon film equipment for many years. I think their design often warrants higher prices (like the 300 f4 with OIS, which , AFAIK, covers FF, right?). When someone asks me for advice on a camera system, I ask them what they will be doing with it, and make recommendations appropriately. I also tell them if they buy one of the major manufacturer's DSLRs, they'll have a good system, no matter which one they pick.
I wouldn't mind seeing the comparable list of lenses that you made.

I agree, at recommending it is vital to look at what the use is gonna be. A friend of mine got really tired of always flashing his newborn baby in the eyes, with his Rebel and a slow IS zoom. Now he got a fast 50, but still could use higher Iso or Image Stabilization. He is happy with the cam, so that is the important thing. And having fun with photography. And eventually, he'll likely piece together the missing links in the line-up. I would imagine a 2.8 zoom is gonna cost him, though.

Last edited by Jonson PL; 07-20-2009 at 12:31 AM.
07-21-2009, 06:50 AM   #78
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote
Lots of canon owners buy an adapter out of UK to use this one lens on the eos platform: $250 an 6+month wait time.

I went one better and bought a D700 to drive mine. This lens is really a 21st century design. Sharp as primes throughout focal range. And it ran me $700 less than a Canon 14mm II 2.8 or you could say made my D700 cost me $1500 when you consider having THE BEST 14mm full frame was mandantory for me. Hands down winner for ultrawide capture is made by Nikon.

Nikon 14-24mm G Test v Canon 14mm L II


Nikon G - Canon EOS Adapter


16:9 | Photographic Resources & Lens Tests

And I'd point out that if circular fisheye imaging is your thing, nikon made one from 1977- 1998 that does work fine with D700 & Canon has never made one for Eos mount.

I know firsthand as this is my Nikon made ultrawide lens pair:



14-24mm 2.8 next to a 8mm 2.8
These should be superb, congrats on awesome Wide-angle.

Though adaptors can be had; the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8, would not be Auto-focus on Canon rig, right ?
07-21-2009, 08:59 AM   #79
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
Thank You

Indeed an amazing pair of ultrawide technology. The circular fisheye is the hard one to locate. it was discontinued in 1998 after first being introduced in late 1970. High purchase price new makes it scarce today inspite of its 28 year production run.

The 14-24 has no autofocus or electronic aperture controls when adapted to eos mount. If you get a chance to handle a 14-24 2.8 on a full frame dslr or film camera its simply stunning. A zoom that performs like primes in all my favorite focal lengths. Due to overwhelming demand for UK adapter, offered by one person due to complexity, I choose to add D700 at same moment I added 14-24mm right before, infact the day before the huge 2009 US price increases. I saved just short of $500 on the 14-24mm 2.8 since January 09, so far...

QuoteOriginally posted by Jonson PL Quote
These should be superb, congrats on awesome Wide-angle.

Though adaptors can be had; the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8, would not be Auto-focus on Canon rig, right ?


07-22-2009, 09:50 AM   #80
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by digitaldevo Quote
Don;t get mne wrong, I loved my Canon rigs, just got tired of all the BS with Canon not giving two craps about its clients! And instead of fixing bugs, issues, etc. they just would release another model in the same line fixing those issues(supposedly) and expect you to have to purchase an entirely new body!!! Add a few extra useless features on there to make it look better, etc. Total BS! L glass with tons of AF issues, IS units breaking left and right on 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM L and 100-400mm f/4 IS L and 300mm f/4 IS USM L lenses, internal components falling apart and into the lens barrel on an entire batch of 100-400mm IS USM L lenses, faulty shutters on Rebels, 40Ds, etc. Giving Spot Metering that is NOT even true spot metering just something they are calling spot, I mean, come on, even the entry level from all other Manufacturers tend to offer true Spot Metering as it is an integral part of photography! Now the fiascoes with the Series 1 bodies that have been plagued and junk since day 1!! They need to stop trying to live off their name and actually start producing some great equipment and lenses like they used to years ago!!
On which Canon models, isn't it true spot-metering ?
07-22-2009, 09:59 AM   #81
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonson PL Quote
On which Canon models, isn't it true spot-metering ?
Don't think the Rebels have spot metering, nor does Canon claim they do.

Other than that, not sure what he's on about. Probably been surfing a few too many camera forums where the negative things tend to get blown out of proportion (two or three people have an issue and suddenly it's like the entire production run is plagued with problems) from what I can tell from his rant, or he was an extremely unlucky user. The one point he does make, though not very clearly, is that the 1D/1Ds Mark III bodies have been a bit of a fiasco for Canon; they have been recalled multiple times for AF problems. Again, it only affects a limited number of people in reality, and there are tons of photographers using them actively every day... but yes, if you pay that kind of money for a body you expect it to be working well out of the box. The other 1-series cameras have been huge successes and are extremely well regarded. As for "IS units failing left and right", well, no. Not really.
07-22-2009, 04:47 PM   #82
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,960
Original Poster
The 14-24 and the 24-70 f2.8 lenses are stellar indeed. But, just didn't serve my purpose. Gain some and lose a bit more sort of a situation.
07-24-2009, 05:03 AM   #83
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,960
Original Poster
Finally made my decision.

I looked at the Nikon D700, Canon 5D mkII and the Sony A900. All of which have great pros and cons.

The D700 has magnificent iso performance, incredible AF and AF-tracking, and peerless flash system. Not too happy with lens selection and price.

Canon has incredible IQ, not happy with AF, and no built-in flash and size.

Sony A900 is bulky. Offers SR. Got great Zeiss lenses.

It was a hard decision, but at the end it all cleared up and made sense.

With an abundance of features, the incredibly small package, wonderful iso performance and all the AF performance I will need the choice was clear.

My K-7 is on it's way.

07-24-2009, 03:25 PM   #84
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
I looked at the Nikon D700, Canon 5D mkII and the Sony A900. All of which have great pros and cons.

The D700 has magnificent iso performance, incredible AF and AF-tracking, and peerless flash system. Not too happy with lens selection and price.

Canon has incredible IQ, not happy with AF, and no built-in flash and size.

Sony A900 is bulky. Offers SR. Got great Zeiss lenses.

It was a hard decision, but at the end it all cleared up and made sense.

With an abundance of features, the incredibly small package, wonderful iso performance and all the AF performance I will need the choice was clear.

My K-7 is on it's way.
Congrats, looking forward to your pictures from it.
As you say, all cameras will have their Pros and cons. So it is just for us, to make our choice, and have fun
07-24-2009, 04:10 PM   #85
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,960
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonson PL Quote
Congrats, looking forward to your pictures from it.
As you say, all cameras will have their Pros and cons. So it is just for us, to make our choice, and have fun
Thanks, definitely will post image as soon as I get some worthy ones.
08-14-2009, 09:13 AM   #86
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote


Why do people do this? They call them "crop-bodies" for a reason. A crop sensor is a crop taken out of the middle of a full-frame sensor's image. You would get the same thing by taking your 1Ds2 and cropping what you want out of the middle.

edit: right?

You must be a favourite for the Can*n marketing department

I wouldn’t mind a 0.86 crop/FF cam, one day. But I bet for different reasons than you would think, would matter.
...


You can easily have a crop camera resolve more detail than a FF cam.
And the K10 at Iso 100, even has more DR than the Eos 5D.



But if IQ is the ultimate for you, why settle for Film Format size, when you can have Medium Format with the new 645D ?

I’ve attached the add for the original 645 Pentax, showing the difference between the two.
Attached Images
 
08-14-2009, 09:40 AM   #87
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 239
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
I have made the same calculations every time a new Pentax comes out to see if its worth staying put or moving on. Its very very hard to justify moving on when you have all the lenses you need, including all three FA LTDs.

Even if I sold those, plus two immaculate FA* teles and all my DA and DA* lenses, I could only afford a D300 with 4 equivalent zooms and 1 wide prime or a D700 and 3 zooms. Calculation is similar with Canon. Sony starts to look decent value for the A900, but I wont go back to proprietary hotshoes again!

So despite the doom and gloom from DPreview, I will stay but I will probably skip the K7 unless I get desperate and start doing weddings.
So true done it a few times and to replicate my setup with Canon/Nikon would at least cost me 1.5x to 2.5x times what I paid for my pentax gear.
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!
af, camera, d700, dslr, flash, iso, nikon, pentax, performance, photography, sr, system, systems
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is the k-x mirror slap issue real? kyknos Pentax DSLR Discussion 31 10-29-2010 10:16 AM
People It's easy to fall in love when you use a Pentax creampuff Post Your Photos! 3 09-18-2010 02:24 PM
PENTAX K-5 easy to spot in a crowd of K-7s (K-5 photo) Ole Pentax News and Rumors 36 09-16-2010 07:24 PM
I miss B&W - My attempt to replicate the feel mtroute Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 11 01-20-2010 07:43 AM
Price increases...Pentax has an easy time ryan s General Talk 2 01-31-2009 03:39 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:36 PM. | 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