[yusuf]

I recently got two Nikon primes (28/2 and 24/2) and somehow I didn't like the rendering wide open. This was the first time I was using Nikon manual lenses and was not very happy.

It may be that I am really used to Pentax rendering or may be I made a wrong lens choice. Is there any Nikon or Canon manual focus lens you liked better than equivalent Pentax lens and you wished you could use it on Pentax?

[Aegon]

The Nikon 180/2.8 and 105/2.5 have great reputations.

The 180 has been updated through the years from non-AI up to AF-D. That's a great lens, for sure.

These lenses don't make me wish for Pentax because they are best on FF. Pentax doesn't have FF.

[deadwolfbones]

Nikon 28/2.8 Ai-s, but luckily I have one mount-converted. Same with the 105/2.5.

Nikon 180/2.8
Nikon 135/2
Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2
Nikon 200/2
etc etc etc

[pinholecam]

In the first place, 28-24mm are not for shallow DOF anyway, though I do find the Pentax 24mm (ie. K24/2.8 and FA*24/2) to have rather good bokeh.
Perhaps Pentax does balance size, contrast, sharpness, bokeh, etc, while others have other optical design philosophies (eg. sharper; less CA, etc)
Compared to say the Sigma 24/1.8, which some ppl ga-ga over because its f1.8 and can give shallow DOF, but to me, its not as well built, big, less flare resistant and ugly bokeh.

Pentax lenses tend to be smaller even for legacy lenses.

Canon 50/1.2 FD, but does not focus to infinity on EOS mount and need quite a bit of grinding down. Nice but drawbacks (works up to about 3m), and not totally necessary imo, compared to f1.4 Pentax options.
Tried one, like what it gave, but focus up to 3m was a no-no.
So no incentive to get one.

Nikon 105/2.5 is reputed to be a work horse of a lens (cheap too). But I have a S.Tak 100/2, which while not a work horse is quite a unicorn.
So again, no incentive to get one.


Edit (add) :
I find little that I want from Canikon to make up for Pentax lenses that I have.
And thats only scratching the surface here because I'm referring to S.Taks that I use on my 5D.
I'd rather look at more interesting lenses from CZJ, Leica-R or Contax.

---

Last edited by pinholecam; 09-27-2013 at 08:52 PM.

[northcoastgreg]

I can't say that I'm all that interested in Canikon glass. Great stuff. Just doesn't fit my shooting style like Pentax glass. However, I've always been intrigued by the Tilt-shift lenses. Also, some of the super-teles are quite impressive. For example, the Canon 800 f5.6. Unfortunately, even if those lenses were available for the K-mount, I could never afford them.

[yusuf]

Well, it all started with my hunt for a smaller FF 35/1.4, Samyang is too big, and Nikon looks reasonably sized. Although, a local dealer didn't have 35/1.4, got Nikon 28/2 ai and 24/2 ais, both of them very reasonably priced ($150 each) so picked them up knowing that the Pentax 28/2 is difficult to find, and Pentax 24/2 is almost $600. Although I am not very satisfied with both of them wide open, but using them successfully made me curious about the other lenses possibilities.

[jogiba]

Canon 50mm F0.95 :

You Tube

You Tube

[Nesster]

My first taste of Nikon was the FE, which I bought because I wanted to use a Nikkor 35/2 -- the Pentax equivalents being a bit much for my cheap self. My first photos took me back to the 70s magazines with their look. Leibowitz in Rolling Stone, or some of the Nat Geo photogs.
The 105 that's been mentioned also gives that look and is sharp... as are the various 24mm lenses.

Yes, Pentax has made equivalents at one time or another, and no doubt they are excellent lenses. But what I really wish is that Pentax had made many many more of them, like Nikon did, for the pro market back when, so we could now be buying them up at reasonable prices.

[carrrlangas]

The Nikon 180/2.8 and 105/2.5 have great reputations.

+100 on that. Although I´ve never used these lenses myself, I´ve seen the extensive work of Galen Rowell with both of them and it is amazing (comparing images of the same trip / location taken with these and other nikon lenses). I remember reading in one of his books that the 180mm was the sharpest lens in his bag (quite a bag when he worked for Nat Geo, he would take 20 lenses) and that it guaranteed him huge copies when used.

On the other hand, he used the 24mm a lot and I don´t like how it would render starbusts or how it handled flare... (spoiled by modern glass?)
The 35/1.4 was another of his asses and it was quite sharp. Especially nice for night shots.

Sorry for hijacking the thread but I think it is a must, so if anyone is interested take a look at this (cheap!) excelent book: Mountain Light
http://www.amazon.com/Mountain-Light-Search-Dynamic-Landscape/dp/1578051924/...s=galen+rowell

[yusuf]

+100 on that. Although I´ve never used these lenses myself, I´ve seen the extensive work of Galen Rowell with both of them and it is amazing (comparing images of the same trip / location taken with these and other nikon lenses). I remember reading in one of his books that the 180mm was the sharpest lens in his bag (quite a bag when he worked for Nat Geo, he would take 20 lenses) and that it guaranteed him huge copies when used.

On the other hand, he used the 24mm a lot and I don´t like how it would render starbusts or how it handled flare... (spoiled by modern glass?)
The 35/1.4 was another of his asses and it was quite sharp. Especially nice for night shots.

Sorry for hijacking the thread but I think it is a must, so if anyone is interested take a look at this (cheap!) excelent book: Mountain Light
Mountain Light: In Search of the Dynamic Landscape: Galen Rowell, David Muench: 9781578051922: Amazon.com: Books

May be I should now hunt for 105mm. I anyway prefer 100mm focal length over both 85 and 135mm.

Btw, I also liked Nikon 24/f2, f2 comes very handy and it's a sharp lens even wide open and very sharp stopped down, what I don't like is rendering wide open which is something weird. To give you an example, just took a quick shot wide open, as it is from camera (it's night here)

[yusuf]

The Nikon 180/2.8 and 105/2.5 have great reputations.

How do you compare Nikon 105mm with Pentax 100/2.8 lenses?

Thanks

[carrrlangas]

Btw, I also liked Nikon 24/f2, f2 comes very handy and it's a sharp lens even wide open and very sharp stopped down, what I don't like is rendering wide open which is something weird. To give you an example, just took a quick shot wide open, as it is from camera (it's night here)

I see what you mean. Looks good for helios funs

[yusuf]

I see what you mean. Looks good for helios funs

actually, the same funky bokeh I see in 28/2 AI so it looks like Nikon wide-open characteristic. From 2.8, things starts becoming normal.

btw, anyone has ever compared Nikon 105mm with Pentax equivalent - M100 or A100?