New DA* Lenses

I see that Pentax has announced the new DA* f2.8 Zooms with USM focusing:

http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses/lens_16_50

 

According to Mike Johnston they are weathersealed:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/

I'm mainly a Nikon manual focus shooter, have zillions of primes, but occasionally use a

D70s. I was going to buy a D200 this summer, but, all of a sudden, Pentax is starting to look

very interesting.

 

Pentax K10D, 16-50 2.8 zoom, 50-135 2.8 zoom - for me, a complete travel kit with some

anti-dust mechanism. So it is between a Nikon D200 with which I can use my MF primes

(and let the dust in), and a Pentax K10D with which I can shoot in .dng (Have Photoshop and

just ordered Lightroom).

Gene, for about three grand, you'll have your 2 lens K10D kit. Those new lenses are looking pricey.

More details here:

http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=9590481

 

"These PENTAX-DA* series lenses feature a tightly sealed, weather-resistant and dust-

resistant construction to enhance durability for use in rain or dusty conditions making

each a perfect companion for the weather-sealed PENTAX K10D digital SLR. The lenses

also feature the PENTAX original Quick-Shift Focus System for instant switching to

manual-focus operation and PENTAX-original SP (Super Protect) coating to repel dust,

water and grease. A new SDM system has been incorporated for smoother, quieter

autofocusing operation using a built-in supersonic motor."

$1800 MSRP for the two lenses. How do Nikon 2.8 USM/VR/weather sealed lenses compare?

 

I haven't looked but I'm guessing you'd spend $1800 on them.

 

Actually I just did a quick look. The nikon 70-200 AF-S VR 2.8 is almost the cost of both the pentax lenses.

 

And since Nikon doesn't make (yes, it doesn't make) a 2.8 16-55 range zoom in fixed aperture with VR the closest lens is the 28-70 AF-S VR which is $1400.

 

These lenses are a $600 savings over the Nikon models. While the K10D is a $400+ savings over the D200.

 

So $3000 vs $4000. Unless money grows on trees where you live, thats a whole grand that doesn't leave you bank account.

Based on a quick comparison of the MSRP and B&H prices I think it reasonable to assume that

the lenses will have a street price of less than 70% of the MSRP; So I imagine that the price of

the 16-50/2.8 will be about $650, perhaps less. In comparison, Nikon's 17-55/2.8 is $1200

and Canon's is $1000.

Its revealing to see what pentax lenses they include in their lineup on the left side of the link. B&H should delete all the "back~ordered" and "special~order" pentax prime lenses now. Like 85mm 1.4, 200mm 2.8, 300mm 2.8, 400mm 4.5, ect...

 

It'll be intersting to test these two 2.8 zooms in person at the next dealer demo days held locally in next 45 days.

 

Lindy

Gene, I think 1 of 2 of these lenses is already available for your Nikon mount, via Tokina, Pentax' business partner for $799:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=12041&A=details&Q=&sku=469652&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

 

Lindy

Price wise not fair to compare full frame to 1.6 frame lenses. Also not fair to compare vr to non vr lenses.

On a K10D or K100D, they are VR lenses. The comparison seems pretty fair to me.

"Price wise not fair to compare full frame to 1.6 frame lenses"

 

If you are referring to my comparison, all of the lenses I mentioned--Nikon, Canon and

Pentax--are for the APS-C sensor, not full frame.

Actually, a fairer comparison to the new Pentax 16 - 50mm f/2.8 would probably be the Nikkor 17 - 55mm f/2.8. That is a "DX" lens (made for Nikon dslr's), weighs 754 g vs. approx 565 g for the Pentax, costs $1199 new at B & H, and is from every account I've seen a first-rate lens.<p>

That lens was my comparison Michael.

 

I note an image of the unreleased DA35/2.8 here:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/

I am dissapointed that it is so slow.

Jason,

 

The 35mm is a macro. 2.8 is a pretty typical max aperture for that sort of thing.

<< ... That lens was my comparison Michael. ... >>

 

It sure was.

 

Sorry, I had focused on Justin's comment immediately above your post about the Nikkor 28 - 70mm f/2.8 VR lens.

 

Hope your forecast about the actual street prices vs. MSRP proves to be accurate.

Indeed f2.8 seems the norm for macro lenses, but to be real honest I don't see the point of a

35mm macro lens (too close to subject) or of yet another Pentax DA macro (now we have

three). A really weird choice in my (humble) opinion.

For copying stuff in a lab, a FL of 35 mm would be a good choice.

Alan,

 

Actually it is quite fair to compare VR to non VR.

 

Once mounted on a VR/SR camera all lenses are VR.

 

Pentax shouldn't be penalized for making a more affordable option.

 

If both lenses do the same thing (and since I don't care about panning) they both do the same thing, therefore, nikon actually is the worse value. Moreover, if Nikon sticks to it's guns and doesn't release a full 35mm sensor then there is no reason for expensive in lens stabilization, other then to sell more new lenses. This is similar to crippling the mount like they did on the D80 and D40 models.

 

The only advantage of lens based thus far is for full frame which would require a larger lens mount for in camera stabilization.

 

personally getting more into the technical aspect of sensor design I see that FF is really just an old standard. I've always known at some point sensors would shrink while quality increased, but I figured to hit the next level with most ease adding a larger sensor was the quickest option short term. I'm more and more inclined to agree with the people who say there will be APS-C and MF (which might eventually be current 35mm.

 

Clearly several companies are commited to less then FF sensors, with Canon being the only one to buck the trend.

 

In anycase the Pentax lenses are simply a better deal at almost 50% savings for equal IQ and features when mounted to a K10D or even K100D.

"Actually, a fairer comparison to the new Pentax 16 - 50mm f/2.8 would probably be the Nikkor 17 - 55mm f/2.8. That is a "DX" lens (made for Nikon dslr's), weighs 754 g vs. approx 565 g for the Pentax, costs $1199 new at B & H, and is from every account I've seen a first-rate lens."

 

It would be comparable other then weather sealing (i'm not sure if it is) and VR which it isn't.

 

Once you take those two aspects out you cannot compare the lenses other then focal length and aperture.

 

Comparing fast 2.8 VR lenses and fast non VR is pointless.

<< ... Comparing fast 2.8 VR lenses and fast non VR is pointless. ... >>

 

For you perhaps, but not for me. If I were a Nikon dslr owner considering a pro-level zoom at that focal length, the Nikkor 17 - 55mm f/2.8 would be the one I'd look at.

 

Were I considering a similar quality lens for a Pentax dslr, then the new 16 - 50mm f/2.8 would be the one on the menu.

 

By the same token, if I were starting from scratch, weighing a Nikon system vs. a Pentax system, each anchored by a fast, well built, constant aperture wide-to-short tele zoom, then I'd again be comparing those two lenses. I'd likely be comparing a D200 vs. a K10D as well. The fact that they're clearly not identical cameras wouldn't stop me from comparing them, nor would it -- to my eye, at least -- make such comparisons "pointless."

My comment on the pointless side was directed at the fact that for about the same street price (assuming optically both are solid pro lenses) the Nikon is the poorer value.

 

I'm not sure if it's truly weather sealed, but even if it is, it's not VR which the Pentax is. If Nikon wants to play hardball they need to put SR/VR in the camera or cut the price of the VR lenses. Just like they released the D40 to compete with the K100 series Pentax 6MP.

 

That was my point. The Nikon lenses are no longer a value when compared to the Pentax system. I can't believe I just said, Pentax system. Ok, getting ahead of myself, as pentax needs to catch up to demand but if as has been the case and the entire lens roadmap happens, the Pentax system when fully deployed is simply better then the Nikon system.

 

If you want to say Nikon makes a T&S, you can get one off Ebay (SMC Pentax 28mm T&S) for $550 which is a nice deal. Other then that, when the road map is complete Pentax lenses will be even with Nikon but Nikon will be stuck in film based in lense VR.

Well, if you already have a set of Nikon equipment, you'd still choose the Nikon lens over an incompatible Pentax lens.

 

Yes, Pentax seems to have become a viable competitor. Finally. I am thinking about investing in the system. Fast primes, primes optimized for digital, zoom ranges sensible for digital sensor sizes, image stabilization on all lenses, manual focus lens compatibility, it's all there. Very good.

 

The only thing that bothers me about Pentax is that most of the Limited primes seem to be perpetually out of stock. Why?

The FA primes may not be produced anymore.

 

I say may, because B&H and Adorama do get lenses I have preordered in from time to time but are supposedly no longer produced.

 

I'm not sure if they are tracking these down from other sellers who have stock that isn't moving or they are coming in from Pentax.

 

Regardless, these are sought after lenses.

 

The DA versions (optimized for digital but some work on FA mounts) are in stock most places. I can currently order the 21mm, 40mm and 70mm from any # of places in stock.

 

If the 40 and 70 work on film SLRs as well if you can adjust the aperture on the body.

 

My comments were totally directed at people buying into a system for the first time or considering switching systems.

 

The Pentax lineup now and in the future (assuming more lenses on the map or otherwise) come to market is very competitive with the Nikon lineup. If you need a T&S you can find SMC T&S on Ebay from time to time. One was just listed, everything else seems to be either in production or coming to market in the next 9 mos.