Folks who moved from Pentax to Nikon FF: do you miss your limiteds?

For those who moved from Pentax to Nikon FF: are you happy without your FA limiteds? Apart from the limiteds, I dont know what I will miss. Hence the thread. Dont want to sound like a troll but I am an amateur, adore  my FA limiteds and love low light photos with thin DoF. The D600+50/1.4 looks attractive.

BTW: have been more than happy with my Kx + primes ... but I often think I either need a more compact APSC system like the Fuji 35/1.4 + body or a FF/prime combo ...

well, i guess the people that miss their lenses will reply; they are here to see your thread.

people that don't miss them will likely not reply...

hope you get things worked out and whichever choice turns out to be good in the long run.

The only problem with Nikon is everyone has the same lenses, that isn't a big deal, but you don't get as unique of a look.

If I were to buy a full frame with some primes, I would skip the 1.4 primes and go with the 1.8 lenses.  A D600 with 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm f/1.8G would be a really slick set.  Remember, you get an extra stop+ depth of field vs APS-C.  This set would be $2100 US + 700 + 220 + 500 = $3520 US.

For Fuji, I would definitely buy the 35mm f/1.4, but would wait for the 56mm f/1.4 and 23mm f/1.4 lenses, but if you get an XE1 it is $1000 US + 600 for the 35mm, and if we went with 18/2 and 60/2.4 macro since they are out it would be $2850 for the set of three lenses.

For Pentax, you could get the K-5II and set of FA limiteds, but I think they are a bit tight in range for all 3, I would probably pick 1 or 2, maybe the 15, 31, and 77 or 21, 43, and 77, etc.  Lots of different options here.  The 3 FA Limiteds and a K-5II would be something like $4300 US retail.  You get better build feel than the Nikon D600 and cheap G lenses though.

Eric

--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

I kept my 77, 35 and 15, because I didn't want to find out.  

--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

Still keeping all waiting when will be "FF" from Pentax.

Hmm, I agree the LTDs are nice, but if they really did move to Nikon I think this thread would get more appropriate responses there. With that being said, I am just now planning my K mount lens collection and I have ruled out all limiteds so far, as well as all DA* glass. From the charts I have seen, sigma is leading the pack with just about everything I would want. The Tamron 70-200 is an amazing lens too that pentax has no answer for (for that price anyways). I have been looking at primes too, but the sigma 50mm 1.4 matches any of the pentax line and is only $450.

I can't speak for AF, and pentax seems to have better build quality plus WS, but for IQ they seem to be a tad behind. The one lens I wish was better overall is the 18-135WS, that could have been a very nice one.

Just a word of caution on your quest for sharpness.

The Sigma 50 1.4 is undoughtedley a great lens probably the 2nd best 50 ish for pentax but does suffer a design flaw which gives it an onion bokeh.

This is caused by internal bokeh diffraction and can't be fixed, whether it bothers you or not I don't know but there is a reason it's $450 and the 85 is $900.!

But you do have to go to the da*55 to do better or indeed the limiteds.

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall

Nikon produces many lens as good or better than the limiteds so I wouldn't use that as an excuse/chain to keep you in the Pentax camp.

cost may be a deciding factor, Nikon decent glass is more expensive than Pentax and with the cost of restocking your lens collection .......

your gains in IQ will be nominal compared to the capital outlay, I good photography course would be cheaper and deliver more improvement in your shooting pleasure

I can see some sense in going from and entry level Pentax to an entry level Nikon at least you wont miss the features a higher spec camera would deliver.

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall

Well, I did not move from Pentax to Nikon FF, but I added Nikon FF to my Pentax equipment because of the need of a fast AF and high iso capabilities for indoor sports and concerts I am attending either as accredited or official photographer.

So, I am using both Pentax (K-5 and now also K-5 IIs with a wide bunch of lenses) and Nikon D4 (with the high end glass of Nikon such as 14-24, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 70-200/2.8 and a few Sigma lenses as well, 24-70/2.8 and 120-300/2.8).

Do I miss the Limiteds on Nikon? From the point of view of IQ, yes, to some degree, while the Nikon lenses are clearly trimmed for sharpness, it results in less pleasant bokeh. But I miss them as compact prime lens, the Nikon primes are great, but they are also large and heavy.

What I regret most when using the Nikon is the user interface of Pentax. On Pentax, be it the K-7, K-5, K-5 IIs, 645D, they all have pretty much the very same user interface and same menu, and well organized. They do also behave exactly the same way. On Nikon however, I am constantly looking through the whole menu when searching for an item, even worse, the menu and user interface is different between D700, D3s and D4.

But for concerts or sports, I would not want to miss the D4 anymore.

--
Dominique
International Press Association
http://ipaimpress.com/author/dominique/
http://www.pbase.com/tcom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschreckling/

one of the dumbest things i've ever done was sell my ME-super and 43mm LTD

I went full frame Canon and the thinner depth of field is great, i missed them until i got a 28-70 f2.8, then forgot them entirely when i got the 50mm f1.2. Full frame is big and heavy though, i went the other way as well with a NEX-5n and some voigtlander lenses for traveling light

--
http://www.simonanders.com/sig.jpg

Dom

Do you think your usability issues are related to 'what you know' or intrinsic issues with Nikons menu layout ?

Envy you the D4

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall

You're being unfair. Nikon's F-mount has the largest range of native (i.e. adaptor free) compatible lenses of any system.

Many people here - and this is hardly a representative group - fetishize the 2.8 zooms. The so-called Holy Trinity" of 12-24, 24-70 and 70-200.

However there are people like myself who shoot primes exclusively.

The 1.4 primes are better than the 1.8's though the price difference is significant. If you don't need the speed the 1.8's are excellent.

Nikon's 24 1.4g is arguably the best lens at that length on any system and the 200 f2 is simply one of the best lenses ever made. It's also $6K.

I am lucky enough to have both and would also recommend the 85 1.4G.

Shooting Nikon primes of any speed puts you miles outside the mainstream. The only questionable choice in the current line-up is any of the AF 50's which are all mundane and lack Nikon's flagship build and feature set.

You're way more likely to be 'me too' with Fuji. There's hardly any glass to choose from.

Again you sound either ill-informed or pejorative. Nikon G lenses aren't a 'range'. G has nothing to do with build quality. There are cheap G lenses and expensive ones. All it means is there's no aperture ring. If you've shot a 200G, 300G, 24G or even the slightly cheaper 35G you'll know the build quality is superb.

IMHO saying that the 24mm 1.4g is the best lens at any lenght on any system is arguable. Pentax also has a claim to that with the FA31, FA43, FA77, DA21, DA40, DA70.

Then there are the lenses from Canon, Leica, Zeiss etc etc

The 85mm f1.4 is nice but not enough to be 3x expensive against its f1.8 brother.

--
It's not about the tool, its how you use it

At first I thought it was my lack of practice with Nikon, but after two years of using Nikon at various sports and concerts events, I guess it is not only related to lack of practice.

But, with the "Shooting Menu", "Custom Settings" and "Setup", it is not necessarily obvious where you find which option.

For example, selecting the IPTC set to apply to the photos taken is under "Setup" while movie format or noise reduction is under "Shooting" and flash shutter under "Custom Settings".

Yes, I can understand that!

--
Dominique
International Press Association
http://ipaimpress.com/author/dominique/
http://www.pbase.com/tcom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschreckling/

I didn't say that. I said :

"Nikon's 24 1.4g is arguably the best lens at THAT length on any system"

It's arguable. Not a fact.

I like the Pentax limited's and am thinking seriously of buying them. They lack modern features (like ultrasonic motors and instant manual override) which take them off the top-tier though.The size is what appeals along with the hope I'll be able to shoot them full-frame down the line.

Every fanboi thinks their chosen system is the best. I use every major system and work with professionals who know a lot more than me. My take is this.

It's damn hard to buy a really terrible lens from a major manufacturer but Canon L's are over-rated (not bad at all, some very good, but all held up as 'the best' when in fact the tilt-shift lenses and a couple of others are the only ones to have earned that distinction), Pentax is under-rated, Sony Zeiss AF lenses aren't in the same league as Zeiss manual-focus, Nikkor's range from the out-of-date to best of class (24.1G, 12-24 f2.8, 200 f2 almost all the Micros) and Leica, unsurprisingly, are at the top of the class overall.

It's very difficult to compare Zeiss, who optimize for quality, with Leica, who optimize for speed and quality. When people compare the Lux Leica's to f2 Zeiss's it's not a balanced appraisal. Zeiss aren't making small, fast glass for a reason. I love what they do but their new 50's are massive. If Leica was prepared to compromise on size like that their lenses would be even sharper.

At the end of the day their objectives (groan) are different. Fast glass is meant to be shot open. However when you look at Leica's f2 and slower glass against Zeiss, Leica wins. The new 50mm summicron is about as good as lenses get. Leica insist on performance, size and speed.

It's also worth looking at the Costal Optics f4 Macro for Nikon. Unbelievable quality. Another lens which is arguably the best-of-the-best.

Not true at all. If you need the speed there is no alternative. It's nonsense to say that you can somehow create light out of nothing by saving money. The best results at low light start with gathering the most light. If you don't agree with that we can all shoot f4s, save the weight and money and fix it in post.

Good God, it's war out there! While heavy zooms are sweeping, shutters clicking, mirrors slapping continuously and flashes and strobes firing, reason and emotions keep silent.

--
Zvonimir Tosic
“A portrait is not made in the camera, but on either side of it.”
— Edward Steichen

I do apologize if I read it differently.

Even if they lacked the USM, the AF is still fast and the DA limiteds have a manual override (quick shift). With their IQ, I can't see the reason why take them off top tier when IQ is the most important factor.

A 2/3 stop advantage is not worth 3x the price especially with today's modern sensors for lowlight photography. But I will not disagree that the 1.4g is a much better lens in terms of overall IQ even though hard to discern. But it also just proves that the 1.8g is of an awesome value.

--
It's not about the tool, its how you use it

I usually browse casually for images from a few of the people that used to post and came across this one.

The answer is both a yes and a no. whether i am happy or not is rarely related to a camera though

where I miss the limiteds or the (DA21 and FA43 to be specific) is not on the IQ side as such. Nikon has lenses in their line up that rivals the IQ of the limiteds, the rendering is slightly different, but unique and very pleasing in their own way.

The Nikkor 35/1.4 is an example of such a lens, perhaps one of the most balanced lenses I have come across and I like its rendering almost as much as the FA43ltd (which stil remains my favourite from a rendering point of view)

The DC-Nikkor 135/2 is another, blistering sharp from f2 and very pleasing rendring (much like the FA77 it can be a PF monster in high contrast situations if you do not take care though)

Just to mention a couple of lenses that i have come to rely on as workhorses. But they are big lenses compared to the limiteds and yes the compact design is something I miss.

Unlike Dominique I do however not have a problem with the menu system, but I do not shoot fast paced events either, I mostly working with a D800e mounted on a solid tripod these days.

What for me remains unique about Pentax to me is the limiteds and the compact well constructed pro quality bodies. I still recommend the system when I find it suit the needs of people asking.

A compact 35mm digital body would be very likely to draw me back into the system, just for the FA43ltd.

--
Thomas
Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
~~Link to homepage and blog in profile~~

Maybe you mis-interpret the tone of my post.  I like Nikon fine.

This is exactly what I am talking about, everyone wants those lenses, and many people have them.  They aren't as unique.

I do too.

Depends.  The 50mm f/1.4G doesn't perform any better than the 1.8G (having owned both on my D700 and tested them out pretty thoroughly).  Rarely could I even identify which photo was taken with which lens.

Agreed, maybe not main stream, but still plenty of them out there.  The 50s are what they are, and are really quite good.  It is a cheap focal length to get so many people have a large aperture 50.

Agreed to some extent, but they sell so few cameras that it breaks even.  I.e. if you think using Nikon primes are exclusive, I imagine Nikon sells more prime only kits than Fuji sells cameras

No, I was referring explicitly to the 28/50/85 1.8G series lenses from earlier that I recommend (strongly) with the D600.  They are well built, but don't feel as well built.  Notice I said "build feel" not "build quality".  If you have used the FA limiteds they feel like little Leica lenses (not quite).

Again, I think you misinterpreted the tone of my post, sorry if I wasn't clear about that.  I was mostly referring to the 3 f/1.8G lenses I mention above.  I love Nikon and their prime lenses (they make some of the best, and good value on some of them too, the 1.8G series lenses for example).

Eric

--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

The answer is a wholehearted yes!

Now, i didn't move to Nikon FF but I did move to Nikon DX (D300s, D7000 + 6 lenses). Not wanting to dish out $1500 for a 35mm, I opted for the small but mighty 35/1.8 DX.... a sad replacement for the 31/1.8. While perhaps sharper at f/1.8 and with more consistent focus accuracy,the optics and tactile experience just don't compare.

(Btw, the colour, contrast and sharpness of the 17-55 AFS have nothing on the DA 16-50. It just doesn't "pop"!)

--
www.flickr.com/photos/owencherry