Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-07-2012, 07:36 PM - 1 Like   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NE, USA
Posts: 1,302
You guys jumping on Nikon's ship...here are some lens options for ya!

Nikon's 10 Best Lenses

04-07-2012, 07:45 PM   #2
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Newrfoundland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,666
Nice!
To bad there's no prices. I that would be really useful given Pentax's recent price changes.
04-07-2012, 07:46 PM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ohio
Photos: Albums
Posts: 339
The only problem is that when you talk about best lenses, usually you are not talking about something that helps the pocket the best. If jumping the ship is because of recent lens price I'm afraid it is not helping that much!
04-07-2012, 07:54 PM   #4
Veteran Member
Todd Adamson's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Iowa
Posts: 722
I guess it's probably because I started out with Nikon that a bump in Pentax pricing doesn't get me all that bent out of shape. I feel like I stole the FA43 and the FA77, and I'd pay more if I had to. And if the Pentax analog to Nikon's 70-200 is even close to the same level of lens (I've never used it), then even the higher price is a bargain.

04-07-2012, 07:56 PM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: DMV
Photos: Albums
Posts: 431
But most of them don't even have VR - Vibration Reduction ? You would have to carry a tripod mostly everywhere to ensure perfectly stable pic
04-08-2012, 04:18 AM   #6
Veteran Member
causey's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,757
It seems that only Nikon's cheap lenses are, well, cheap. Looking at the Amazon prices of the lenses on the list, it appears the list itself is an argument for sticking with Pentax (unless, of course, one wants to go FF).
04-08-2012, 04:34 AM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23,845
QuoteOriginally posted by causey Quote
It seems that only Nikon's cheap lenses are, well, cheap. Looking at the Amazon prices of the lenses on the list, it appears the list itself is an argument for sticking with Pentax (unless, of course, one wants to go FF).
Nikon has cheap lenses and then they have expensive lenses and very little in between. As to how good/bad a deal Pentax is depends on what you compare lenses to. If you compare the FA 77 to the Nikon 85 f1.4 it looks like a good deal. If you compare it to the 85 f1.8, not so much.

I assume with the slower primes (50f1.8 versus the 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 versus 85 f1.4) that biggest differences are in the rendering of out of focus areas and micro contrast, as the slower primes seem to have decent sharpness, even wide open.

04-08-2012, 04:50 AM   #8
Veteran Member
causey's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,757
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Nikon has cheap lenses and then they have expensive lenses and very little in between. As to how good/bad a deal Pentax is depends on what you compare lenses to. If you compare the FA 77 to the Nikon 85 f1.4 it looks like a good deal. If you compare it to the 85 f1.8, not so much.

I assume with the slower primes (50f1.8 versus the 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 versus 85 f1.4) that biggest differences are in the rendering of out of focus areas and micro contrast, as the slower primes seem to have decent sharpness, even wide open.
I'm a kind of micro-contrast addict, and in spite of what many say, I haven't found micro-contrast to be easily produced in PP programs. Pentax lenses (ltds., but also Takumars, and K's, and M's) have good to excellent micro-contrast. I haven't had a Nikon camera, but from the pics I've seen online it seems you have to pay a lot to get similar micro-contrast in Nikonia. (It is my subjective impression that the general Pentax rendering is quite a bit nicer than the rendering of Canikon, and that micro-contrast is what makes this difference.)
04-08-2012, 05:20 AM   #9
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,119
Look up those Nikon prices and with the exception of the 50/1.8, you better have a pretty fat wallet.
04-09-2012, 06:07 AM - 1 Like   #10
Veteran Member
Todd Adamson's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Iowa
Posts: 722
QuoteOriginally posted by causey Quote
I'm a kind of micro-contrast addict, and in spite of what many say, I haven't found micro-contrast to be easily produced in PP programs. Pentax lenses (ltds., but also Takumars, and K's, and M's) have good to excellent micro-contrast. I haven't had a Nikon camera, but from the pics I've seen online it seems you have to pay a lot to get similar micro-contrast in Nikonia. (It is my subjective impression that the general Pentax rendering is quite a bit nicer than the rendering of Canikon, and that micro-contrast is what makes this difference.)
While I know that micro-contrast becomes a pretty objective thing, I'm in full agrement with you here. Nikon makes some great, great lenses, and I suppose Canon does, too (or some people tell me that...hehe). But to approach the level of, for example, the FA Limiteds, you'll pay at least twice the price. And Nikon doesn't have, and has never had, a lens that puts all the wonderful qualities of the FA77 into a single package. Pentax is still a freakin' bargain.
04-09-2012, 11:33 PM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,169
QuoteOriginally posted by StDevious Quote
But most of them don't even have VR - Vibration Reduction ? You would have to carry a tripod mostly everywhere to ensure perfectly stable pic
That's a bit exaggerated, isn't it? Sure, VR/SR/IS is very helpful, but if you are unable to get sharp pictures without it you should probably work on your camera technique. I can usually get sharp results with say a 50 at 1/25 second, and at that point it is mostly subject movement that is the issue; no shake reduction system in the world will do anything about that.

Don't get me wrong, given the option I would take a lens with stabilization over an equivalent lens without, but at least for me it is far from a dealbreaker.
04-10-2012, 12:18 AM   #12
Veteran Member
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
Dont' forget this fundamental principle of VR per Thom:

Nikon VR explained

The first and most important rule of VR is this: never turn VR on unless it's actually needed.

Just like SR, VR has its own problems.

The both work well for some specific applications. In others, they can give random OOF.
04-10-2012, 06:59 AM   #13
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote

QuoteOriginally posted by StDevious:
But most of them don't even have VR - Vibration Reduction ? You would have to carry a tripod mostly everywhere to ensure perfectly stable pic

That's a bit exaggerated, isn't it? Sure, VR/SR/IS is very helpful, but if you are unable to get sharp pictures without it you should probably work on your camera technique. I can usually get sharp results with say a 50 at 1/25 second, and at that point it is mostly subject movement that is the issue; no shake reduction system in the world will do anything about that.

Don't get me wrong, given the option I would take a lens with stabilization over an equivalent lens without, but at least for me it is far from a dealbreaker.

Yes, that's an exaggeration. SR/VR is not needed in most shooting situations, but it is useful with low-light & static subjects, when shutter speed is really restricted and you have no possibility of subject motion. It's nice to have in your bag, but not having it doesn't require 'carrying a tripod everywhere'

Every shot I've placed in the Full Frame shots & thoughts thread was taken without SR/VR.

Regarding the list of lenses in the original post here - I'd always take Ken Rockwell with a grain of salt, and can't agree with some of his choices.


.
04-10-2012, 12:08 PM   #14
Veteran Member
Raffwal's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The North
Posts: 877
In his blog post a couple of years ago a Finnish pro photographer called Matti Sulanto suggested a cheap but good enough basic manual lens setup that could be bought according to him for some meager 400€ 2nd hand:

Nikkor Ai 28 mm f/2.8
Nikkor Ai 50 mm f/2
Nikkor Ai 105 mm f/2.5
Nikkor Ai 200 mm f/4

So I guess that if one is willing to manual focus, a decent FF lens setup does not ALWAYS cost an arm and a leg.





(For those who can and want to read his blog post in Finnish: sulantoblog: Kaikki tarpeelliset objektiivit 400 eurolla)
04-10-2012, 01:21 PM   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: La Crescenta, CA
Posts: 7,450
Yes, that's entirely true (even if used manual lens prices have ticked upwards).
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!
lens options
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WRONG way to ship a lens. Silverkarn Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 11-30-2010 11:19 AM
Lens Options Cobra Gr1 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 07-23-2010 05:33 PM
New Nikons TriCon Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 6 04-16-2010 10:52 AM
Nikons trick up their sleeve Damn Brit General Talk 2 08-08-2009 12:51 PM
The new Nikons and General Talk 13 08-24-2007 08:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:00 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