Change from Nikon F100 to Pentax K10D

[cecil_ward]

I'm considering moving from film to digital. I've done alot of research and

like what the K10D offers. I presently own a Nikon F100, 20-40mm AF Tamron, 28-

85 AF Nikon, 80-200 F2.8 AF Nikon, 400mm F4 Tamron, 90mm Macro Tamron, and a

1000mm Celestron mirror lens. Unless I purchase a Nikon D200 or D300 (which

are just too expensive) the non-AF lenses are not very usable. This is more of

a lens question. I really don't need the speed of the 80-200 but don't want a

F4.5-5.6 either. This lens is one of the best ever and would hate to give it

up, but what is available in a Pentax or Pentax mount F4 that is a top quality

lens? What are your favorite lenses in the 20mm-100mm range. I would

appreciate any comments.

[mountainvisions]

You won't have problems building a pentax system under 135mm. it gets a bit iffy above that.

 

when I say iffy, I have a system of pro glass from 20mm-200mm (and the results of my 10-20 thus far have left me nothing of note to not include it in the "Pro glass section") and would have already aquired the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 (a very good lens) had the SDM bodie(s) not come out. Now my 300mm lens is on hold while I wait for the SDM ball to get rolling by sigma.

 

For the lens system you list you can very easily aquire similar lenses in Pentax AF (via Pentax OEM and Tokina, Tamron and Sigma).

 

BTW, the Pentax 55-200 (which I don't own) has garnered alot of praise on this board and may others. It is a f/4-5.6 but the IQ seems excellent.

 

Any chance you are willing to part with the F100 at a fair price?

 

One of the best Nikon cameras made right infront or behind the N90/F90.

 

Your switch seems very reasonable as you don't have any seriously hard to replace glass in the bunch and pentax glass offerings in the 14-135mm range at this time and in the past are among the best of any brand, add some in camera SR to those offerings and you have an amazing package that doesn't compromise optics to give you SR.

[stemked]

If you want to check out the old and current K mount Pentax lenses just go to: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/ Many of the faster lenses are rarer than hen's teeth.

 

I have or have owned the 200mm* f4 macro A, 200mm f4 A and can say they are lovely manual lenses. If you have specific questions I can help you out.

 

As to other makers in this range that have K-mount I believe Sigmas something to 300mm (100-300?) is an f4.

 

In the 20-100mm there are a ton of lenses I like; too many to list. As one example the 20-25mm f4 FA lens is a better optic than the similar Nikon lens of its day.

[afs760bf]

As others have said, up to about 200mm, you won't have trouble finding Pentax glass. Above that, however, you'll have to pay over two grand for something like a 300mm/2.8, and the prices go up from there.

 

This may be heresy in this forum, but you could quickly save the price difference between the K10D and the D200 on one lens, so you might want to at least think about it.

 

Having said that, there are many Pentax lenses in the 20-100mm range to suit your fancy. The always stellar 50mm/f1.4 is nice. I have a 12-24 Pentax digital zoom that is terrific. I have a Sigma 24mm/f1.8 that is very nice. You can still buy Vivitar Series 1 (Kiron) 105mm macro lenses for the camera, and the 90mm Tamron macro is available for the camera. There are some nice limited lenses, especially the 77mm, which I don't have but get great reviews.

 

Good luck

[sfcole]

The big, fast zooms that Pentax has recently put out--16-50 and 50-135--have so far failed

to match similar offerings by Nikon and Canon. Some reviews have been pretty

disappointing.There are also enough focusing problems reported by k10d owners to give me

pause.

[mountainvisions]

I haven't tested (ie taken enough photos) my 50-135 yet. But the handful I've taken have been printable...no focus issues (that I've noticed), not gross failures of the lens in any way.

<P>

A lot of people measure everything by the pixel and when you print it's not quite like that. Especially depending on what size you print.

<P>

As much as I believe everyone on this board has a house full of their images blown up to 20X30, I'd bet most of us don't have much larger than 11x14 or 12x18 on the wall. And every lens I own (and at this point I believe I do actually have an 11x14 or 12x18 from most of them) is capable of that.

<P>

Here is a shot from the 50-135...just impromptu snap shot I took while using the 50-135 for landscape work and noticed the low sun light rimming my dog. It was taken wide open by the way at 135mm from across the summit. I don't see any serious issues with the IQ. <BR>

<a title="Caney On St Regis Summit" href=" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/1378/1410621161_4cba1aa457_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>

[sfcole]

Justin,

Just for the sake of argument (and realizing you know what you're doing), you have to

admit it's hard to judge a small 72 dpi photo on the web.

 

My main point is that the new fast zooms by Pentax are not cheap--approaching Canon

and Nikon, whose lenses already have excellent reputations. The issue is whether Pentax's

lenses are, dollar for dollar, as good. I don't make 20x30 enlargements, but I do often

crop. It shouldn't be enough to not have gross failures--these are L-priced lenses that

should deliver L quality.

Scott

[mountainvisions]

I agree with what your saying.

 

I've heard some grumbling about the lens but I haven't seen it yet. when I shoot a few hundred frames I'll know more. Until then, all I can say is I've seen no glaring flaws.

 

The problem is some lenses do great on test charts, some do a little less great. However, photos are taken/created in the real world not test charts.

 

I'll post my updated verdict at some point in the future after I've shot enough frames.

 

Personally, I don't feel Canon L is what lenses should be compared to, only a few Canon L's have been shown vastly superior to the competition, most are fairly average lenses, but if everyone else feels that is the benchmark...

[nicholas_fiduccia]

Hi Cecil,

 

As yourself, I am considering a move from film (olympus) to

digital and have considered both Pentax and Nikon as platforms

for my digital exploration. Here is the conclusion that I have

reached:

 

As a person who does primarily landscapes photography, I use

primarily prime lenses. As such, the Pentax system has probably

the best system in the world for APS-C sized sensor SLR

cameras in the focal lenghts I am interested (14mm to 100mm

-ish lengths). Pentax has a rather complete set of nicely spaced

primes in this range at a reasonable price. For quality, I would

put the these primes against any other maker and am pretty

confident that as a group they would compare favorably. A

system built from these primes represent a great value over a

similarly configured Nikon system.

 

However, the Pentax cameras are not as sophisticated as Nikon

when it comes to tracking moving subjects (wildlife/sports

photography) as Nikon (and definitely Canon) nor does it have

the extensive range of zoom and prime telephotos to suport this

activity.

 

So think about what you photograph. If you a primarily shoot

static subjects and occasionally moving children, the Pentax

system will perform admirally for a resonable cost.

 

If you have aspirations to be a wildlife or sports photographer,

the Nikon system will be best for you.

 

The best of luck to you! Nick

[mountainvisions]

Nic,

<P>

I oddly have both aspirations and real life experience as a sports photog with Pentax.

<P>

 

Had many photos on the back page (sports front page) at university shooting pentax and I'm able to do just fine shooting Pentax today. And my competition was of course for the most part using Canon or Nikon.

<P>

 

Please bear in mind that people took mind blowing sports photos long before there were 10FPS cameras and 54 zone AF. Actually, I've taken some decent sports photos on a K1000 as my side camera with a wider angle lens.

<P>

But what you said clearly reinforces how much marketing has to do with peoples decisions.

 

<P>

 

I'd concede that if your goal is to be a Sports Illustrated photographer you should definitely use another brand. But even my friends shooting Canon and using 400mm 2.8 IS glass (insane glass) have figured out that making a living shooting sports is almost impossible and gets harder and harder every year.

<P>

 

Few examples of money where mouth is:

<P>

 

<a title="Tricity Valleycats vs. Brooklyn Cyclones" href=" src="http://static.flickr.com/1095/796659220_1b574c54b2_d.jpg" border="0" /></a>

<P>

 

<a title="Tricity Valleycats vs. Brooklyn Cyclones" href=" src="http://static.flickr.com/1423/795778221_4d3dab1296_d.jpg" border="0" /></a>

<P>

 

<a title="Tri-City Valley Cats (2007)" href=" src="http://static.flickr.com/1416/734510769_3bbcd12a9d_d.jpg" border="0" /></a>

<P>

 

<a title="Tri-City Valley Cats (2007)" href=" src="http://static.flickr.com/1289/734516091_635a6d5b0c_d.jpg" border="0" /></a>

<P>

 

<a title="Tri-City Valleycats 2007" href=" src="http://static.flickr.com/1340/656305809_ecfdc59c38_d.jpg" border="0" /></a>

<P>

 

<a title="Greasy Fast Weaving (Dog Agility)" href=" src="http://static.flickr.com/199/515388637_525d1d622f_d.jpg" border="0" /></a>

<P>

 

<a title="ECAC Hockey Tournament" href=" src="http://static.flickr.com/179/424878354_4a1b3c55eb_d.jpg" border="0" /></a>

[spirit]

Considering you already have some Nikon glass it might be to your advantage to at least check out the Nikon cameras.That 80-200mm f2.8 would be tempting to hold on to if it were me. That being said, you ask for opinions about glass up to 100mm or so? If your looking for a splendid portrait lens I can HIGHLY recomend the 77mm f1.8 Limited. It's expensive, but for me has been WELL worth the price. Good luck.

[chepas_nigs]

The Pentax K10d is a good camera - but I would agree with the above suggestion - you already have a good set of Nikon lenses. you won't probably need AF with macro, and unless you are shooting very fast moving objects with the 400mm, you can still shoot as you have done with the F100. You would not probably need AF for the Celestron. You can go with the Nikon D80 - nearly priced similarly with the K10d.

[nicholas_fiduccia]

Hi Justin,

 

Excellent pictures by the way! Your point about people making

great sports pictures before the auto-focus era is a good one.

Many of the good pictures, as yours show, were taken by the

photographer anticipating the action happening at a specific

point and thus may have been manually pre-focused. It is the

skill of the photographer to determine where to frame and to

push the shutter at the correct instance. In this case, the inherent

focusing sophistication of the camera is not as important as a

sports photographers skill and experience. Don't you agree?

 

Nick

[steve graham]

Much as I like my Pentax system I'd have to say that given the lenses you aleady own you'd have to be mental to not at least give the Nikon options serious consideration. Even though the bodies are more expensive the cost of replacing those lenses will more that make up for the difference.

 

Someone mentioned the Pentax 55-200 as a possible replacement for your 80-200 F2.8 - it's not, not even close. The Tokina 80-200 F2.8 (that what I use) or Sigma 70-200 F2.8 are however they're not easy to find in Pentax AF.

[mountainvisions]

Nich,

 

I'd say largely anticipating action is key.

 

Even with the best system chasing action might occasionally get you a great shot, but consistently getting good shots requires understanding the game or sport you are photographing.

 

I don't feel the sophistication of the system is all that important.

 

Let me explain that, the Canon 1D MarkII help guide tells photographers to map the AF button away from the shutter and use center point only.

 

So you've now taken a 45 point AF system and reduced it to one point.

 

Why does this work?

 

Simple, with 45 points the camera has to guess what is the subject...with one point you point the camera at the subject.

 

Eliminate variability and you get more consistent results.

 

I use the same technique with both my pentax digitals. AF-C, center point, AF button vs. shutter release.

 

This allows me to prefocus then quickly go back to AF if the action is a bit away from my original area. Also, in baseball for instance, I might expect a bunt and a play at 3b but the batter might fake bunt and swing creating a play at the plate, while I would have been pre-focused on 3rd base, I can quickly switch to AF and get the play at the plate.

 

So sophistication of a system is largely wasted by the fact that for the most keepers you turn off the automation and go with the KISS method.