Planning a dual system with Pentax

<p>I need some inputs in preparation for a dual system with Pentax and Nikon. I trust my Pentax friends and please don't take it as an insult that I am trolling on Pentax forums for Nikon advice. <br /> .<br /> .<br /> I will have a single Pentax body with the following lens. <br /> .</p>

<ul>

<li>A single Pentax digital body</li>

<li>Primes: 15, 35, 43, 77, 300 & 1.7x TC </li>

<li>Zooms: 10-17, 28-75, 50-135mm</li>

<li>(T) Manual primes, 17, 24, 35, 58, 100, 200, 500</li>

<li>(T) Manual zooms: 80-200 f/2.8 ...... & others </li>

<li>no grip and likely no flash as I don't like p-ttl in Pentax</li>

</ul>

<p>.<br /> (T) Many of the manual primes and zooms are in Tamron adaptall-2 mounts that can be shared between my Pentax and Nikon gear. And I will venture to a Nikon D7000 with the following kits<br /> .</p>

<ul>

<li>A single Nikon body that is not heavy, e.g. Nikon D7000</li>

<li>Three zooms in 12-24, 17-70, 55-300</li>

<li>Tokina 12-24 f/4.0</li>

<li>Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5</li>

<li>Nikon 55-300mm f/4.0-5.6 VRII and swm</li>

<li>One prime with the budget 35mm f/1.8</li>

<li>Dual flash with SB600 </li>

<li>no grip </li>

</ul>

<p>.<br /> Since I sold my best street shooter with DA 21mm f/3.2 limited, I may go for the Fuji x100 with 23mm f/2.0 for street shooter with 1 camera.</p>

<p>What input are you asking for Hin? Those are both very big systems with considerable overlap. I know you've been a bit unhappy with Pentax service but wouldn't a new K-5 make a whole lot more sense as it's very similar to the D7000 and then you don't need 7 new lenses and a flash? P-ttl isn't that bad on the K-x and I bet will be better on the K-5</p>

<p>Hin, I have to agree with Peter. My question for you: what are your must-have requirements for adding on a second system? I don't see a lot of differentiation here.</p>

<p>My initlal need for adding a Canon 7D was to shoot fast moving sports. And it has worked well for that. My second major requirement is to add capture capabilities not possible with the Pentax lineup, including producing large distortion-free interior and landscape prints. This should be satisfied by a shift/tilt lens and a camera with a larger sensor.</p>

<p>What remains for the Pentax side are the small DA Limited lenses that are unique. The couple of high-value old-style MF prime telephotos I have will serve both systems with an adaptor.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>Yes, there are overlaps in the transition in dual system in the beginning and after a while, I may choose to shift to Nikon digital completely. All the zooms and DA primes in Pentax as in 10-17, 28-75, 50-135, 15, 35 can be eliminated when I am more familiar with Nikon. I will keep the the small primes in 43 and 77 for Pentax film. All Pentax lens in 10-17, 50-135 and 35 have equivalent in Tokina Nikon series, but the 15 is absent.</p>

<p>@Peter, I only plan for 3 zooms and 1 prime in Nikon, not 7 lens. And all those overlapping zooms will eventually phase out on my Pentax system if I find that I can adapt to Nikon digital.</p>

<p>@Michael, this is all just planning stage as I don't see concrete pricing from Pentax on K5 whereas I see the consistent pricing in Nikon. Nikon is more expensive to own, I am aware of that. But the choices of lens are more and 3rd party lens support as in Tokina, Tamron and Sigma have more choices especially for the longer end if I find the need on birds photography. I wish there is something similar to the Canon 100-400 and Pentax just don't have that in the story. Even if one has a good 300mm f/4.0, there is no TC support in Pentax.</p>

<p>In my view, K5 is a better camera than D7000 but the initial confused pricing is sort of disturbing and it just shows the poor communication for Pentax with all the secrecy with no lens roadmap to share with dedicated users.</p>

<p>What I look in the 2nd system:</p>

<ul>

<li>similar body weight with K20D and K7</li>

<li>good low light performance in 1600 and 3200 that beats my Pentax K-x</li>

<li>better AF system for tracking objects in movement as in shooting kids running and birds flying scenes.</li>

<li>better flash support system as I am naively find myself pathetic with p-ttl </li>

<li>good AF in indoor and low light shooting</li>

<li>quiet operation</li>

<li>1080 video support for kids events</li>

<li>good live view performance </li>

<li>a body that I can trust as main or backup body, my K-x falls short completely and I need a 2nd body that I can trust</li>

</ul>

<p>Hin, I recall when you where close to getting the D90 and never did. I am sure you regret that decision and as such, get the D7000. I say this not because it is a better deal or camera than the K-5 (assuming it glitch free) but because I know what it feels like to have something in your head. If you get a K-5 you will continue to wonder about Nikon and not be happy. As far as the expense goes, speaking for myself, I never really felt it because I sold the vast majority of Pentax glass and it was just about a wash. Of course my kit is small now. <br>

My nikon kit consist of D300S, D700, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 all F/2.8 vr lenses. For my own personal uses, I am done. I was waiting and waiting and waiting for the 24F/1.4 to come out I realized I did not need it. The 14-24 rarely comes off the d300s. So I am done. Simple small kit...</p>

<p>But as I have said, I love the Pentax small primes and is what I use most often. So in reality, when it was all said and done, my entire kit is 60% smaller than it used to be and I do miss any gear I have sold.</p>

<p>So I would say go for it. I am considering the D7000 myself and will likely end up buying one. So far the D300 owners are like...Man, I should have got one of those...So it happens in both camps....By the way, when I bought my D300s, I bought additional warranty coverage for $60.00 that covers an additional 3 years. This covers down time for what ever reason. Drops, etc. I bought it through Samys. Something to consider. </p>

 

<p>I don't know where to start. My dual system was as different as night and day.</p>

<ul>

<li>Pentax K20D with 14, 31, and 77mm limiteds, and a manual focus 50mm f2.8 macro. No flash.</li>

<li>Nikon D3 and a D2X backup with 14-24, 24-70, 70-200mm f2.8, 50 and 85mm f1.4, 135mm f2, 60mm f2.8 and 200mm f4.0 macros, 85mm tilt/shift macro, 300mm f2.8. Eight flashes, mostly SB-800.</li>

</ul>

<p>They did different things, went different places. There's so much overlap and duplication as what you have listed. It's hard to use one system to back up the other, unless you take both bags along, which could drive you up the wall. So, I'll throw in with the others and say I can't see why you're going dual systems. That aside, here's a few tidbits...</p>

<ul>

<li>Scrap that Sigma lens. One of the few little bits of sanity in dual Nikon/Pentax ownership is that Nikon and Pentax focus in the same direction. All Sigma lenses focus in the Canon direction. Tamron and Tokina have the courtesy to have their lenses focus in the appropriate direction for each system. I'm fond of the Tamron 17-55 f2.8. But there's a respectable Tokina in that range that's also available as a Pentax, so you'd have essentially the same normal zoom on both systems.</li>

<li>While you can control a pair of SB-600 from the built-in flash of the D7000, it's awkward at best, and the control range is limited. Either an SU-800 controller in addition to the SB-600s, or replace one SB-600 with an SB-900. I also believe SB-600 is discontinued, so unless you're going to get them really soon, go SB-700.</li>

</ul>

<p>@Javier, much thanks for the inputs. Maybe we can put less emphasis on the 24mm f/1.4 and instead we may have the potential to found street shooters with Fuji x100 and I do hope that it can be priced in the 1K region. I have sold about 18 items and more to reach the 25 items target before my Nikon D7000 or Pentax K5 decision. I own it to myself to think clearly in the decision. All inputs helps. I hope when my K-x finally come back, my grief and frustration with Pentax will go down with time . As of now, K5 doesn't interest me as much as K7 or D7000 does even when D7000 and K7 may not be as capable as K5. I think the overlap in the dual system can be managed somewhat.</p>

<p>@ Joseph, much thanks for the valuable inputs especially on the SB600 flash. I wonder if I can keep the Pentax AF540 and use it as a optical slave to built-in flash or SB600 as a master. I like SB600 for the cheaper initial cost of ownership and smaller form factor.</p>

<p>So my initial planning has changed a bit based on all gathered inputs</p>

<ul>

<li>Only three zooms to go with Nikon D7000, no prime until I can sort out the initial adaptation</li>

<li><strong>Tokina 12-24 f/4.0</strong> -- this is similar to Pentax DA 12-24, used lens in Nikon mount seems to run in the $300 to $400</li>

<li><strong>Tamron 17-50 f/2.8</strong> -- I have used and like the version in Pentax mount and I see no reason not to like it but I also like the broader range as in Nikon 16-85. A new one with tamron rebate is about $400</li>

<li><strong>Nikon 55-300mm VR</strong> -- I heard good performance like the Nikon 70-300mm with VR -- about $375</li>

<li>one single flash with <strong>Nikon SB600</strong> -- about $200</li>

</ul>

<p>My 'Dual' system was Pentax 35mm and Pentax 67mm. But then I always saw the 35mm as a backup for the 67 (I had the K to 67 adapter). Talk about the tail waggin' the dog.<br>

I think as others have noted systems should complement each other. If you needed tilt/shift, long telephotos, rental equipment, Canon/Nikon is the way to go. For me and hiking weight has always been an issue without leaving behind optics. That always defined Pentax for me. I could take 5-6 lenses (from 400mm to 20mm, plus a macro )and two 35mm bodies fairly comfortably for the same weight as a 0ne body/ three lens system with Canon. Interestingly I could take the 67 + a SuperProgram + 3 lenses 67 and one 35mm lenses pretty comfortably too. Mind you this is mostly film days stuff.<br>

Personally if you have two setups you are just going to leave one at home mostly IMHO.</p>

<p>Hin, the one lens I would buy for sure if I got a Nikon system is the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I would have loved that lens as a DA* for my Pentax.</p>

<p>I'll echo what others have said: If you're going dual system, then focus on each brand's strengths and have as little overlap as possible.</p>

<p>Yep, that Tokina 11-16mm has been very tempting. But it's cropped sensor only. I've convinced myself to get the 15mm LTD instead and take advantage of the small size. If I had a Nikon, their 12-24mm is considered the king of the UWA heap, zoom or prime.<br>

Hin, the Tamron 17-50mm I like better on Canon than Pentax, but am ignorant about Nikon. Remember, though, no IS at those prices.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>Hin, I've played this game in my head many times and have had trouble coming up with kits that I think I'm likely to be completely satisfied with. It's kind of a shame that they don't update the 18-70/3.5-4.5 zoom with VR and maybe slightly improved optics...but I think they've settled on 3.5-5.6 + VR as their midrange approach. I think you may also find yourself wanting to rely on zooms for wide angle. The availability of AF 85/1.8 D at a somewhat reasonable price would be attractive to me.</p>

<p>A reality check--when it comes to longer lenses, are you likely to fork out $1600 for a Nikkor 80-400/4.5-5.6 VR? Or are you looking for a Tokina 80-400 (unstabilized on Nikon)? In between you have other choices like Sigma 120-400, 150-500, 100-300/4, Bigma--but these are all available for K-mount as well.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andrew, that Nikkor 80-400mm is considered one of the worst zoom lenses that Nikon has made in the modern era. It just about single-handedly turned me towards going with Canon, as my core requirement was a versitile zoom in that range. Now the Nikkor 200-400mm is a different story, performance and cost wise.<br>

ME</p>

<p>Michael, I have read some mixed opinions of that lens too. I mentioned it because Hin mentioned Canon's 100-400, and wanted to remind that all isn't sunny for Nikon over 300mm either. My overall impression is that it isn't *terrible* but rather disappointing for the price and not the equal of Canon's 100-400L. Makes me wonder if a Sigma 100-300/4 + TC when needed might not be a better idea. I didn't mention the 200-400/4 because I pretty much assumed that Hin would be buying on at $5600.</p>

<p>On the subject of the 100-300/4, is it being discontinued or upgraded (to OS maybe?) Thought I detected diminishing availability.</p>

<p>Hin,<br>

Yet another thing to seriously think through: Nikon offers a "FF" capability, so consider how many of the initial lenses for a cropped sensor Nikon you are going to hang on to vs. dealing later if you go onto FF. If you purchase DX-type lenses intended for a crop camera, make sure that their market value is strong, especially wider angle ones. I'm grappling with this right now as I'll purchase a 5DMKII a little sooner than I expected--so my strategy for obtaining wider-angle lenses has to accommodate this.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>I will start on the frugal side and move up from there. The longer glass is more reasonable in price in the Canon camps, the 70-200 f/4.0 L lens without IS is my favorite when I try it. Small and lightweight and good wide open. I will target on the Tokina 80-400mm f/4.0-5.6 in the Nikon mount which cost $460 new. I will use it with monpod to help the missing VR. Also, there are some old lenses in Nikon 300 and 400 primes to choose from, I hope. Justin likes his Nikon AF-D 300mm f/4.0 glass and I assume that I can target at something similar. And I can also consider the MF option with Tamron adaptall-2 in 300mm f/2.8 and with 1.4x and 2.0x adaptall-2 TC. </p>

<p>For kit lens, I am looking at both Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 and I think I prefer the later for the 16mm. The absence of VR (or SR) will be something to compromise on. The price in Tokina Nikon mounts are very reasonable. Have you all looked at Tokina 35mm f/2.8 1:1 macro that share the similar optics with my beloved DA 35mm f/2.8, it is priced closer to $300 whereas the Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 is roughly $599. The Tokina 10-17 is also much cheaper than the Pentax equivalent. </p>

<p>And with the AI mount support, I assume that I can be more flexible with manual focus lens such as all of my tamron adaptall zooms and primes.</p>

<p>I used a dual system for 2 years, only because it was cheaper and easier to buy nikon telepohotos.<br /><br />I actually couldn't wait to get out of dual single format systems. D300 gone, D2H gone, 70-200 traded for ka mount 70-200, 180mm F/2.8 gone (a real gem), 300mm F/4 is on the sale block (sort of). I'll miss the 300mm F/4 the most as it was by far the sharpest tele i ever owned. the 180 was damn close but not quite as good.<br /><br />I think you are best off keeping 4 limiteds, 15, 21, 43, 77 and getting a K-5, and saying goodbye to the rest of your pentax gear and going all in Nikon. Anything less is a waste.</p>

<p>Hin,<br>

In the Canon universe the Tamron 17-50mm is more highly regarded than the Tokina 16-50mm. Similar issues to the Pentax version, excepting the SDM stuff. That said, the Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 is a real bargain, discontinued, and hard to find. I was able to get one for 2/3rds the price of the Pentax version. I think the Tokina version is a tad sharper somehow and I like the tripod mount. It may have a bit more CA than the Pentax, but they are so very similar.</p>

<p>RE: the Tokina 35mm macro, another bargain--$260 if you shop around--but I'm passing as the Tamron works fine enough at that focal range, and I'm limiting the DX cropped lenses to the two workhorse focal ranges for me as I mentioned above. Everything else will have the 5DMKII in mind. Plus my M42 lenses work great on the 7D, as do classic Olympus, Nikon, Contax, and Pentax K-mounts with affordable adapters. I never realized that Canon crop-camera bodies are like the universal receiver for lenses because of the registration distance. You should check out the Alternative section at FM Forums to see all the history-rich combos folks are putting together--it's right up your alley.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p> </p>

<p>ME, no need to rub the tripod mount in. That is/was my only real complaint about the 50-135mm.</p>

<p>Glad to see it's as appreciated on a Canon!</p>

<p>For some reason, Pentax is anti tripod mount, it's the reason I never seriously considered the 200mm DA, considering optically it's about as good as a 200mm tele can be. </p>

<p>Then again, Nikon has released some tele zooms without them too, just seems odd to omit it regardless.</p>

<p>Hin I would also agree with ME that the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is an excellent lens to consider. Comparing it to my DA*16-50mm there is less barrel distortion and the lens focuses very fast and accurately. The 1 degree difference isn't worth worrying about between the 2 particularly if you are getting a 12-24mm.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry about that Justin. . .if this helps, I will report that the Tokina hood does not contain a slot to rotate a Polarizing filter :)</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>Hin, I thought you already had enough 'stuff'! :)</p>

<p>@Richard, I am one of the worse guy in terms of having too many lens and cameras. I am still hopeful that with some strategic planning and a kick in the butt, I can down-size and streamline my gear line up.</p>

<p>Every brands has its own strengths and most interesting to me are the good lenses and characters in each brand. I would love to keep my 15,35,43,77 in Pentax, and yet I would love to have a Canon body to use Canon 70-200 f/4.0 and Canon 100-400, and I love Nikon to be on the dark side of everything, the marketing and hype get me overwhelmed but not the lens cost, and after all the dSLR, I will love to have a copy of Samsung nx10 so that I can reuse my Pentax primes in a smaller body that Pentax does not have the guts and brains to build, and last but not least is the ever intriguing soul mate with no lens change in Fuji x100 with 23mm f/2.0.</p>

<p>And that does not include my love on b&w films with wet development on 135, 120, 110 films. And Richard is right in that I have way too many things.</p>

<p>@All, thank you so much for the various inputs. This is very useful to me. I am now down to two zooms and 1 flash to step into Nikon. I will hold off the 12-24 as I have the wonderful DA 15mm f/4.0 limited in Pentax to cover the wide angle needs. And I prefer the smaller size in 15 and the flare control is like no other lens that I have used.</p>

<p>@Michael E, I will go back to the drawing board and look closely in 50D and 7D. The one big reason for me to shy away from 7D is the cost and the weight. It is very unfortunate that Canon chose 60D to be less than a 50D in terms of improvement; otherwise, I would be all over it as I like the longer lens in Canon not in the white color but more in the reasonable cost of ownership. Thanks on the valuable inputs on m42 and mount adapters as Canon is more open and versatile in that sense. </p>

<p>Hin, in my opinion the 7D is the only Canon cropped sensor body to consider. Yes it's more money but you are getting more for the long term too. Yes the 7D is bigger, but the ergonomic improvements over past Canon design is notable and valuable. The AF and overall speed is superb as there is a second processor dedicated for that purpose.</p>

<p>I'm just wondering how long it will be until you purchase a FF?</p>

<p>ME</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm just wondering how long it will be until you purchase a FF?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Don't plant seeds of thought in his head. You know he's done everything he can to not consider full frame, the 645D, or a large format film setup. </p>