Which Nikon DSLR?

jsherman999 · 04-06-2010, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by kunik

Not that it has anything to do with the original question but I can't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion. These are all B&H prices today for relatively equivalent equipment - pro lenses and semi-pro bodies.

Nikon D90 = $899
Nikon D300s = $1519
Pentax K-7 = $899

Pentax 16-50mm = $769
Nikon 24-70mm = $1649

Pentax 50-135mm = $819
Nikon 70-200mm = $1949

Or, for that matter:

Pentax 16-50mm = $769
Tokina 16-50mm = $549 (Nikon mount)

Pentax 50-135mm = $819
Tokina 50-135mm = $650 (Nikon mount)

.

deadwolfbones · 04-06-2010, 03:33 PM

Yeah, I mentioned that later on.

On the other hand, DA 55-300 is a good deal cheaper than the 70-300 VR, and probably nearly as good. (Of course the Nikon is FF and the Pentax is APS-C...)

Goes both ways.

yeatzee · 04-06-2010, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Or, for that matter:

Pentax 16-50mm = $769
Tokina 16-50mm = $549 (Nikon mount)

Pentax 50-135mm = $819
Tokina 50-135mm = $650 (Nikon mount)

.

How is that fair? He was comparing first party lenses....

deadwolfbones · 04-06-2010, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by yeatzee

How is that fair? He was comparing first party lenses....

It's fair because they're the same lens.

LeDave · 04-06-2010, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

It's fair because they're the same lens.

Actually it's not fair

the Tokina being cheaper, can also use the faster and more reliable screw-drive

johnmflores · 04-06-2010, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by LeDave

Actually it's not fair

the Tokina being cheaper, can also use the faster and more reliable screw-drive

But I wouldn't use one in the rain. And on a Nikon body it won't have any form of shake reduction. Nor would many of the Nikon primes and zooms cited in this thread for that matter.

yeatzee · 04-06-2010, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

It's fair because they're the same lens.

Doesn't matter, its still a third party lens compared to a first party one. Third party is almost always going to be cheaper, especially when you think about this specific situation. It lacks weather sealing and SDM. Also, it is not a stabilized lens on nikon bodies which I believe drives Pentax lens prices a bit higher (even though its not lens specific.....). I think they bank on the fact that all other brands -sony charge extra for stabilization so why can't they.... now if we use that logic than all of pentax's lenses are still quite a bargain and canon/nikon have little to no equivalents.

tokyoso · 04-07-2010, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by emr

I'm playing with the thought of getting a Nikon DSLR. Full frame Nikons are still more than I'm willing to pay, so it would have to be an APS-C model. I would then buy FF-capable lenses to go with the camera and eventually upgrade to FF.

But I'm completely ignorant wrt to Nikon cameras. Never owned one, never investigated the subject, once held my brother-in-law's D3.

So which model would you recommend me to get today? Good AF, good IQ, lotsa bang-for-buck.

Thanks.

if you don't plan to ever upgrade to FF, I think Pentax on APS-C is your best value bet. From a marketing perspective, Canon and Nikon are motivated to provide an upgrade path for their customers, while Pentax focus to compete on APS-C in the prosumer market (unless the FF rumours are true).

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Measurebated: K-7 is NOT a Machine Gun! :-(

To me the major feature difference between Pentax and Canikon in the entry/prosumer APS-C market is AF tracking and weather sealing (less so atm, because of sdm problems). Other than that Pentax provides the best APS-C value play without compromising quality (you don't have to buy expensive lenses if you choose not to), IMHO.

emr · 04-07-2010, 06:48 AM

tokyoso, it remains to be seen whether Pentax ever goes FF - ignoring MF for now. Besides, of the Pentax lenses I have gathered so far, only a fraction are FF capable.

cwood · 04-07-2010, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

Because the f/1.8, while half a stop slower, is pretty damn comparable in image quality and a third of the price.

It certainly has some of the most serious CA problems found on any lens though.

There's some great examples in this thread

Camera Labs :: View topic - Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8D review

I only know one person who has that lens and the purple fringing is spectacular.

deadwolfbones · 04-07-2010, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by kunik

It certainly has some of the most serious CA problems found on any lens though.

There's some great examples in this thread

Camera Labs :: View topic - Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8D review

I only know one person who has that lens and the purple fringing is spectacular.

I've been nothing but pleased with mine. PF is there wide open if you're shooting against a bright background, but it's not really an issue in most situations. It's not like the $750+ 77 Lim doesn't have its own PF issues.

f/2.2:

f/1.8:

f/2:

f/1.8:

f/1.8

These are all processed, obviously, but I did nothing w/r/t PF.

alexeyga · 04-07-2010, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by kunik

It certainly has some of the most serious CA problems found on any lens though.

There's some great examples in this thread

Camera Labs :: View topic - Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8D review

I only know one person who has that lens and the purple fringing is spectacular.

Having owned and extensively used the 77Lim, the only real-life advantage vs the 85/1.8 of that last one is it's size and all-metal build...

I'm on my second copy of the 85/1.8 (first one was way too old and wobbly), i'm more than happy with it. Even that old, dusty and wobbly pre-D copy was really sharp and produced great shots... Haven't had any CA or PF problems, at least not more than I had with the 77ltd... and for the price, I somehow prefer the 85/1.8...

It's actually a very boring lens, does everything so well you don't even notice it...

deadwolfbones · 04-07-2010, 12:58 PM

Yeah, forgot to mention that my copy is pre-D.

For more pointless comparison fun:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=65&sort=7&cat=12&page=3
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=64&sort=7&cat=12&page=3

9.4 vs 9.7 user rating, $700+ difference.

alexeyga · 04-07-2010, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

9.4 vs 9.7 user rating, $700+ difference.

And double the size... I've used one... great lens, but one has to be ready to haul it... And I haven't seen any real advantages to even want one... bokeh, for instance, is a bit nicer.... but usually, my photos are about the subject, not about the bokeh....

cwood · 04-07-2010, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

Yeah, forgot to mention that my copy is pre-D.

For more pointless comparison fun:
FM Reviews - 85mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor
FM Reviews - 85mm f/1.4D IF AF Nikkor

9.4 vs 9.7 user rating, $700+ difference.

from the link you provided

"High purple fringing and LCA, almost unusable un-corrected."

04-07-2010, 12:18 PM	#26
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Originally posted by kunik It certainly has some of the most serious CA problems found on any lens though. There's some great examples in this thread Camera Labs :: View topic - Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8D review I only know one person who has that lens and the purple fringing is spectacular. I've been nothing but pleased with mine. PF is there wide open if you're shooting against a bright background, but it's not really an issue in most situations. It's not like the $750+ 77 Lim doesn't have its own PF issues. f/2.2: f/1.8: f/2: f/1.8: f/1.8 These are all processed, obviously, but I did nothing w/r/t PF. Last edited by deadwolfbones; 04-07-2010 at 12:25 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nikon F mount lens on Pentax DSLR?	JP_Seattle	Pentax DSLR Discussion	32	10-28-2015 07:38 AM
Nikon D3s , BEST Dslr ever tested at dpreview	Samsungian	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	31	02-24-2010 02:58 PM
For Sale - Sold: Adaptall-2 Nikon Ai Adapter for Tamron Lens + LF-1 Original Nikon Rear Lens Ca	yyyzzz	Sold Items	1	02-06-2010 02:42 AM
For Sale - Sold: Nikon Nikkor ED 80-200mm f/2.8 AF Lens for Nikon, Worldwide ship!	wallyb	Sold Items	14	12-28-2009 11:31 AM

04-06-2010, 03:28 PM	#16
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by kunik Not that it has anything to do with the original question but I can't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion. These are all B&H prices today for relatively equivalent equipment - pro lenses and semi-pro bodies. Nikon D90 = $899 Nikon D300s = $1519 Pentax K-7 = $899 Pentax 16-50mm = $769 Nikon 24-70mm = $1649 Pentax 50-135mm = $819 Nikon 70-200mm = $1949 Or, for that matter: Pentax 16-50mm = $769 Tokina 16-50mm = $549 (Nikon mount) Pentax 50-135mm = $819 Tokina 50-135mm = $650 (Nikon mount) .

04-06-2010, 03:33 PM	#17
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Yeah, I mentioned that later on. On the other hand, DA 55-300 is a good deal cheaper than the 70-300 VR, and probably nearly as good. (Of course the Nikon is FF and the Pentax is APS-C...) Goes both ways.

04-06-2010, 04:43 PM	#18
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by jsherman999 Or, for that matter: Pentax 16-50mm = $769 Tokina 16-50mm = $549 (Nikon mount) Pentax 50-135mm = $819 Tokina 50-135mm = $650 (Nikon mount) . How is that fair? He was comparing first party lenses....

04-06-2010, 05:53 PM	#19
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Originally posted by yeatzee How is that fair? He was comparing first party lenses.... It's fair because they're the same lens.

04-06-2010, 06:37 PM	#20
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	Originally posted by deadwolfbones It's fair because they're the same lens. Actually it's not fair the Tokina being cheaper, can also use the faster and more reliable screw-drive

04-06-2010, 08:21 PM	#21
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by LeDave Actually it's not fair the Tokina being cheaper, can also use the faster and more reliable screw-drive But I wouldn't use one in the rain. And on a Nikon body it won't have any form of shake reduction. Nor would many of the Nikon primes and zooms cited in this thread for that matter.

04-06-2010, 08:37 PM	#22
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by deadwolfbones It's fair because they're the same lens. Doesn't matter, its still a third party lens compared to a first party one. Third party is almost always going to be cheaper, especially when you think about this specific situation. It lacks weather sealing and SDM. Also, it is not a stabilized lens on nikon bodies which I believe drives Pentax lens prices a bit higher (even though its not lens specific.....). I think they bank on the fact that all other brands -sony charge extra for stabilization so why can't they.... now if we use that logic than all of pentax's lenses are still quite a bargain and canon/nikon have little to no equivalents.

04-07-2010, 06:45 AM	#23
tokyoso Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Tokyo Photos: Albums Posts: 723	Originally posted by emr I'm playing with the thought of getting a Nikon DSLR. Full frame Nikons are still more than I'm willing to pay, so it would have to be an APS-C model. I would then buy FF-capable lenses to go with the camera and eventually upgrade to FF. But I'm completely ignorant wrt to Nikon cameras. Never owned one, never investigated the subject, once held my brother-in-law's D3. So which model would you recommend me to get today? Good AF, good IQ, lotsa bang-for-buck. Thanks. if you don't plan to ever upgrade to FF, I think Pentax on APS-C is your best value bet. From a marketing perspective, Canon and Nikon are motivated to provide an upgrade path for their customers, while Pentax focus to compete on APS-C in the prosumer market (unless the FF rumours are true). RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Measurebated: K-7 is NOT a Machine Gun! :-( To me the major feature difference between Pentax and Canikon in the entry/prosumer APS-C market is AF tracking and weather sealing (less so atm, because of sdm problems). Other than that Pentax provides the best APS-C value play without compromising quality (you don't have to buy expensive lenses if you choose not to), IMHO.

04-07-2010, 06:48 AM	#24
emr Guest	tokyoso, it remains to be seen whether Pentax ever goes FF - ignoring MF for now. Besides, of the Pentax lenses I have gathered so far, only a fraction are FF capable.

04-07-2010, 11:40 AM	#25
cwood Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: California Posts: 851	Originally posted by deadwolfbones Because the f/1.8, while half a stop slower, is pretty damn comparable in image quality and a third of the price. It certainly has some of the most serious CA problems found on any lens though. There's some great examples in this thread Camera Labs :: View topic - Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8D review I only know one person who has that lens and the purple fringing is spectacular.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-07-2010, 12:39 PM	#27
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	Originally posted by kunik It certainly has some of the most serious CA problems found on any lens though. There's some great examples in this thread Camera Labs :: View topic - Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8D review I only know one person who has that lens and the purple fringing is spectacular. Having owned and extensively used the 77Lim, the only real-life advantage vs the 85/1.8 of that last one is it's size and all-metal build... I'm on my second copy of the 85/1.8 (first one was way too old and wobbly), i'm more than happy with it. Even that old, dusty and wobbly pre-D copy was really sharp and produced great shots... Haven't had any CA or PF problems, at least not more than I had with the 77ltd... and for the price, I somehow prefer the 85/1.8... It's actually a very boring lens, does everything so well you don't even notice it...

04-07-2010, 12:58 PM	#28
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Yeah, forgot to mention that my copy is pre-D. For more pointless comparison fun: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=65&sort=7&cat=12&page=3 http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=64&sort=7&cat=12&page=3 9.4 vs 9.7 user rating, $700+ difference.

04-07-2010, 01:34 PM	#29
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	Originally posted by deadwolfbones 9.4 vs 9.7 user rating, $700+ difference. And double the size... I've used one... great lens, but one has to be ready to haul it... And I haven't seen any real advantages to even want one... bokeh, for instance, is a bit nicer.... but usually, my photos are about the subject, not about the bokeh....

04-07-2010, 05:10 PM	#30
cwood Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: California Posts: 851	Originally posted by deadwolfbones Yeah, forgot to mention that my copy is pre-D. For more pointless comparison fun: FM Reviews - 85mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor FM Reviews - 85mm f/1.4D IF AF Nikkor 9.4 vs 9.7 user rating, $700+ difference. from the link you provided "High purple fringing and LCA, almost unusable un-corrected."