[Pablom]

They always try to confuse you with all this 000000
camera is d7000 not d700
all lens prices are taken from b&h

except for the macros, the lenses you mentioned are not comparable, and I bet you a K-5 that it's not going to cost $1,600.

[er1kksen]

Bokeh on this lens is not as bad as you say.



See.



As these people haven't either:

Flickr: Discussing The Nikon 85mm f/1.8. (Post em if you've got em) in Bokeh: Smooth & Silky

I see a lot of busy, harsh bokeh in those samples. I stand by my opinion, which has been expressed by many others as well, and which is why I got a canon 85mm f1.8 instead, back when I was debating the two systems (I really just wanted to spend some time with a really nice fast 85, so I did). If I wanted an 85 with smooth bokeh, I'd take the Canon. If I wanted weird, busy bokeh I'd look around for a Heliar; at least the weirdness is interesting there. Of course, the Nikon 85mm f1.4 is nice and smooth (don't they call it the "cream machine?") but that's well out-of-budget for me.

[K-9]

I see a lot of busy, harsh bokeh in those samples. I stand by my opinion, which has been expressed by many others as well, and which is why I got a canon 85mm f1.8 instead, back when I was debating the two systems (I really just wanted to spend some time with a really nice fast 85, so I did). If I wanted an 85 with smooth bokeh, I'd take the Canon. If I wanted weird, busy bokeh I'd look around for a Heliar; at least the weirdness is interesting there. Of course, the Nikon 85mm f1.4 is nice and smooth (don't they call it the "cream machine?") but that's well out-of-budget for me.

Photozone doesn't agree with you on the Canon's bokeh:

Neither distortions nor lateral CAs are something to worry about in field conditions. However, bokeh fringing (LoCAs) can be visible in some scenes and in extreme situations you may also spot some purple fringing. The quality of the bokeh is generally very good at f/1.8 (apart from the LoCA problems) but the lack of circular aperture blades shows up in out-of-focus highlights when stopping down.

[er1kksen]

Photozone doesn't agree with you on the Canon's bokeh:

I didn't see much in that that disagreed with my impression that the Canon gives smooth bokeh, just that its bokeh characteristics are not perfect, which I never asserted that they were. My opinion, which I still hold based to my own personal experience and many samples shot by others, is that the Canon f1.8 yields much more pleasing and smooth bokeh than the Nikon f1.8, regardless of what photozone or anyone else has to say about it. Of course, Nikon's 85mm f1.4 is better than either one, and I'd rather have it than the Canon f1.8 or f1.2 as I prefer Nikon's cameras in general. But if you've got to spend under $500 I'd get the canon for a better lens at a lower price.

[K-9]

The Nikon 85mm goes for around $1225. For some reason, the import is a lot cheaper on BandH ($1054). I take it you don't get a US warranty, though. It's definitely a better deal than the Canon 85mm f1.2, which is $1929.

[PentxOrni]

Hi, I'm perfectly new entry to this forum and like to bring in my thoughts...immediately Maybe someone picks them up...
Over the past 3 years good Pentax gear has mounted up and at this stage there were only few things (wishes) that came to my mind:
a) more reach (long tele lenses or quality TCs) at affordable price
b) with a good performing DSLR at high ISO
c) and much improved AF features (speeed, accuracy)

Now, b)+c) is settled by Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5 more than sufficiently IMHO. Guess, we saw quite some detailed pics in the meantime.

For a) I don't see competitive lenses of Nikon in my "price league" except the old 80-400 VR. Else I have to go for Sigma lenses in order to cover my needs.

As I have (good) Pentax lenses already and for long tele lenses I'd have to go and get a Sigma, too - where is the deal to switch over to Nikon?

Pricewise I don't see the big difference - in my case obviously always considering long tele lenses or quality zooms - to reach a critical point for a decision to swith over.

Before all the ISO and AF hype around the K5 was in full swing I also considered a Canon 60D or 7D in combination with a 100-400... - and honestly I'm still much in favour of this reasonably light outdoor package with an affordable price tag but will first try the K5 with my existing lenses (DA*300, Sigma 300/2.8+1.4TC, Bigma 50-500).

So, it's not always about the portrait lenses...
I'm going for wildlife that is usually not sitting right in front of me.

[Big G]

Just to touch on PentxOrni's point, one thing that my Canon body gives me that my Pentax body will never give me is quick and easy access to long, expensive Canon L glass at short notice for a very affordable fee. I suspect that would factor into a few people's decision when it comes to "D7000 or K-5" - if you're going to need upwards of 300mm for wildlife or sports, then you either go with Sigma (thus negating any benefit of complete or partial weathersealing, so the K-5's weathersealing is a moot point) or you go with the D7000 and tap into the rental market for serious Nikkor loving.

Canon Nikon Lens Hire, Lenses for Hire, Hire Lenses | Home | Lens Pimp

[dgaies]

Just to touch on PentxOrni's point, one thing that my Canon body gives me that my Pentax body will never give me is quick and easy access to long, expensive Canon L glass at short notice for a very affordable fee.

No argument here; if you want to be able to easily rent long glass then Pentax isn't your best option and the D7000 would make a better choice over the K5.

If, on the other hand, you're not really into long glass, but instead prefer smaller, shorter, stabilized primes, then the K5 gives you options that aren't available on Nikon (or Canon). In this case, the K5 trumps the D7000.

At the end of the day, both models will likely kick ass and it's up to the individual buyer to determine what aspects of each system are more important to him/her.

[PentxOrni]

Never tried to hire a lens - if not to expensive per day that might be an option in certain cases. But as I'm mostly active during the weekend it might limit my opportunities on those (pick up/drop off hassle) and @dgaies you're right, it's always up to the individual needs - I tend to go for a light package and Pentax still is within this scope (DA*300) for me yet.
Would love to have an original Pentax TC and maybe also combined with a 400/5.6 one day though... ;-) Wishful thinking.
What do you think (some of you: do you own) of the combi Sigma 100-300/4 plus Pentax or Nikon?
2 yrs ago I met a nature photographer with Nikon D300 plus Sigma 100-300/4+1.4 TC and it worked well. Would that be an option (IQ!) either on K5 or even the D7000?
Please, excuse my late responses - will be at work after this posting.

[Big G]

I have the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 in a Pentax mount and it is a very good lens indeed, focus is pretty quick even on my K20D. My only problem with it is that it is a very heavy and sizeable lens (monopod for best results) and I also had front focus issues with mine which seems to be a common problem with this lens. I am currently using a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM for telephoto zoom use and I'm finding that much better than the Sigma as it's much, much lighter and more compact. I do miss the extra reach though, it's less suitable for wildlife. I will replace it with Canon's new 70-300 f/4-f/5.6 L (fully weathersealed) unit which will give me a replacement for my Canon 70-200mm and Sigma 100-300mm.

I've got some samples of the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 on a K20D that I can share later from a football match, the AF was actually pretty snappy on my K20D (in bright sun though....), I can only imagine that the K-5 would be even more fabulous. It's a shame there isn't an HSM in Pentax mount (or they wasn't one last time I checked....).

[PentxOrni]

Thanks for yr reply. Regarding size and weight I thought the combi K5+Sigma 100-300+1.4TC (~2.4kg) would be a light package already... the D7000 with same setup would end up with more (~2.55kg)...and I know that the new Canon 60D in combination with the (old) 100-400 telezoom would be much lighter (~2.1kg)...
Well, I will 1st check out the cam which is supposed to arrive tomorrow and then decide what to do - although the Bigma is much heavier and as most affordable Sigma lenses not very sharp at the long end (400-500mm) I still like the good resolution and colors. If this is a matching setup in concert with much better ISO performance and improved AF - I might even stick with my current equipment.
Hence, Nikon D7000 is not an option to switch (for me).

[Kazy]

I'm switching to Nikon because I can't justify sticking with Pentax. They just don't have the options in glass the Big Two have. There's also Nikon's CLS, which blows Pentax's wireless P-TTL out of the water.

$1600 is just way too much for the K-5, especially when the D300s is only $100 more.

And it seems the only thing I'm losing in the D7000 is (questionable) ISO performance, and a PC sync port.


Pentax to me has always been about the dollar performance, but the way they priced the K-5 just makes me think they're getting inflated egos thinking they can compete with Nikon and Canon's similar offerings at that price.

PS: check out Joe McNally's Hot Shoe Diaries if you ever want to see what kind of stuff the CLS can do.

[deadwolfbones]

I'm switching to Nikon because I can't justify sticking with Pentax. They just don't have the options in glass the Big Two have. There's also Nikon's CLS, which blows Pentax's wireless P-TTL out of the water.

$1600 is just way too much for the K-5, especially when the D300s is only $100 more.

And it seems the only thing I'm losing in the D7000 is (questionable) ISO performance, and a PC sync port.


Pentax to me has always been about the dollar performance, but the way they priced the K-5 just makes me think they're getting inflated egos thinking they can compete with Nikon and Canon's similar offerings at that price.

PS: check out Joe McNally's Hot Shoe Diaries if you ever want to see what kind of stuff the CLS can do.

Pentax has glass that Nikon doesn't have as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a dual system shooter and I love both systems, but they each have their strengths. If you have to pick one over the other, to me it's a question of priorities rather than a clear superiority of one brand over the other.

[JohnBee]

the K-5 just makes me think they're getting inflated egos thinking they can compete with Nikon and Canon's similar offerings at that price.

They can and they do... its just that simple
Of course flash photo remains a weak point for Pentax and I hope they are readying to address this in the near future.
However, as for everything else, they seem to be in very good shape.

Size, weight, build, shutter noise, DR, ISO performance, color depth, resolution, cost of ownership are what place Pentax at the top of the pile. And of course it's not for everyone(if I was into flash photo I'd most likely pass). But that's a small margin tbh.

[geauxpez]

They can and they do... its just that simple
Of course flash photo remains a weak point for Pentax and I hope they are readying to address this in the near future.
However, as for everything else, they seem to be in very good shape.

Size, weight, build, shutter noise, DR, ISO performance, color depth, resolution, cost of ownership are what place Pentax at the top of the pile. And of course it's not for everyone(if I was into flash photo I'd most likely pass). But that's a small margin tbh.

It is those things that have me on the fence as well. I am looking to upgrade from My K10D for better high ISO, AF, etc, but there are features of both the K5 and D7000 that I desire (or that one or the other lacks). I consider myself a free agent right now.