Pentax SLR Lenses on D-SLR?

[3-14159]

Please help me decide between two options:

Option 1: Nikon D40x

Reason - excellent reviews

Option 2: Pentax K100D

Reason - I have a couple of lenses (including a 70-210 zoom) from an old Pentax K-1000 film SLR. I know that the lens will physically fit onto the K100D, but is it a wise idea to base my purchase decision on the 'old glass' that I have already?

Thanks,
π

[coldrain]

The K100D is a very nice 6mp DSLR, that has more to offer than the Nikon D40x.

The Pentax K10D is also a very nice and complete DSLR (10mp) that has a whole lot more to offer than the Nikon D40x

The Nikon D40 and D40x are the most cut down (in features) DSLRs you can find on the market.

It totally depends on where you see yourself go with yoru DSLR in future, on what is wisdom. Right now, with your current lenses, it may be nice to get a Pentax DSLR. But of course, your old lenses will never start to autofocus. And do know that the smaller sensors of these APS-C DSLRs make the focal length of the lenses longer in comparison to your film SLR by a factor of 1.5.

So, in relation to your older lenses, get a K100d or K10D.
If you are more interested in getting a nice modern zoom lens line up, a Nikon or Canon will be more appropriate. My personal preference goes out to the Canon lens line-up.
If one would be interested in shorter primes, one could maybe also find what one was looking for with Pentax.

So, that is your choice... choose for the future lens line-up wise: Canon or Nikon.
Choose with your MF lenses in mind, get a Pentax K100d or K10D.

You can of course also now choose to go for a Pentax, and then later on switch to Canon. Hard to say what is wisdom here.

[fionndruinne]

The Nikon D40 and D40x are the most cut down (in features) DSLRs you can find on the market.

Coldrain's favorite mantra.:rolleyes: He's yet to prove how cutting down on features ends up in worse-looking photos. Some folks buy cameras for reasons other than the sum-total of their feature mass.

Give us more info on which Pentax lenses you have. If they're decent quality, that could be a good reason to stick wit Pentax. But if, as seems to most often be the case, the lenses you have are low-grade, then that shouldn't influence you very much.

[Rhys]

Just a thought... generally the digital lenses are of much higher quality. People go into ecstacies over elderly Pentax lenses such as the Super Takkumar but to be quite honest I don't see the results from the photos posted as being any better than a Canon with a kit lens.

[3-14159]

The lenses are:

Sigma UC 70-210mm 1:4-5.6
SMC Pentax-M 1:2 (Asahi Optical Co.)
Focal Auto 2X Teleconverter (PK)

If I had to guess, I would say that the lenses are not of exceptional quality, but I will leave that up to you do decide.

Thanks for the help,
π

[coldrain]

Coldrain's favorite mantra.:rolleyes: He's yet to prove how cutting down on features ends up in worse-looking photos. Some folks buy cameras for reasons other than the sum-total of their feature mass.

Give us more info on which Pentax lenses you have. If they're decent quality, that could be a good reason to stick wit Pentax. But if, as seems to most often be the case, the lenses you have are low-grade, then that shouldn't influence you very much.
Just because YOU do not have certain features on your camera, and therefore CAN NOT USE THEM, and therefore never do, does that mean you have to mess every shot you make up? No of course it does not.

Fact is, there is NOTHING special about the Nikon D40(x). Just another DSLR, that in basic functions does the same as others. And will get you results the same as others.

But yes, it does lack features! Pure and simple. That other cameras do not lack. And as annoying the noise at high ISO is with the Sony A100, it does not mean you mess up every shot with a Sony A100. You do not always need or use high ISO settings! And so, it can well be annoying, when you DO need to use ISO 800 or 1600.

Likewise with the Nikon D40(x). If you DO want to check what your chosen aperture will do with the scene, with a press of the DOF button, and you can't, then, for that shot, it does matter. And when you DO want to use mirror lock up for your longer exposure or critical macro shot, and you don't have it, then it DOES matter. And when you do want to track some fast subject, but your 3 point AF system does not cover the frame enough, then it DOES get to be annoying. Or when you DO want to use an AF point in the top of the frame, not the middle, and you do not have that, then that IS a draw back.

And yes, when you don't need those features for a certain shot, no, you will not mess that shot up.

And when you do expect your camera to have a button to access your white balance, your ISO settings, your AF method and your metering settings, and your camera doesn't have buttons for all of them, and all other DSLRs do, then then can be considered a drawback.

And when your D40 does not include a good RAW converter, and the competition from Canon and Pentax actually do, that can be considered a drawback too.

Could I made a nice photo with a D40(x)? I am very sure I could!
Could I have made each and every photo I have made with my Canon EOS 350D with a D40(x)? No, I could not have!
Could I have equivalent lenses on a D40(x) that I have on my EOS 350D? No, I could not. No 70-200 f4 L. But I could either get a Sigma 70-200 f2.8/nikon 80-200 f2.8, and incur a weight penalty, or get a Nikon 70-300 VR and incur an optic penalty. So this would actually still give me a choice, better than the situation with Pentax.

The Sigma 18-50 f2.8? Luckily Sigma has come out with a D40 compatible lens.

The Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro? No... the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR is the only option here. Quite a bit more expensive. Does have VR though, but in my opinion the optics lack a little bit?

The Tokina 12-24, also not for the D40(x). I'd have to look at the more distorting, more vignetting Sigma 10-20mm. Which does go wider.
Or way more expensive Nikon 12-24 f4.

So, yes. You can make a nice photo with a D40(x). Even I can make a nice photo with a D40(x). It is not a question of nice photo or not.
I can not do ALL what I do with my Canon EOS 350D with D40(x), and neither can you, Fion. And I can not make a lens selection based on the same criteria as I have with my EOS 350D either, if I would have a D40(x), within more or less the same budget.

So yes, fion, what i have said in above post, and what I have said quite a few times before, about the D40(x) being the most cut back DSLR on the market, and me seeing a potential problem in that, is valid.

And that you are happy with your D40 is nice, fine and good.

[coldrain]

The lenses are:

Sigma UC 70-210mm 1:4-5.6
SMC Pentax-M 1:2 (Asahi Optical Co.)
Focal Auto 2X Teleconverter (PK)

If I had to guess, I would say that the lenses are not of exceptional quality, but I will leave that up to you do decide.

Thanks for the help,
π
Your Sigma is nothing to write home about.
2x TC's are not gems in terms of optical quality results, most of the time.

The only worthwhile lens might be the Pentax, of which you have failed to give the actual focal length.

On Canon and Nikon a 50mm lens can be had for a little under (Canon) or over (Nikon) $100. They will offer AF (on Canon always, on Nikon when you go for a D50 or D80 instead of a D40). So if it is a 50mm Pentax, it may not even be so interesting, because on Canon(400D/XTi/30D) and Nikon (D80) you would gain AF.

I would ask myself: What do I want to make photos of, what lenses would I need/want in future. And then, what camera brand offers what I would want in lenses, price wise and optical quality wise.

And then choose a body from the brand that offers what matches what you want to use the camera for, and which will give you in future what you would want in lenses.

[fionndruinne]

Coldrain, you care too much about a camera's abilities on spec sheets. Plain and simple. I get it; cut back means less to talk about.

A camera's performance in the field (see D40 pic thread) should mean more to you.

[coldrain]

Coldrain, you care too much about a camera's abilities on spec sheets. Plain and simple. I get it; cut back means less to talk about.

A camera's performance in the field (see D40 pic thread) should mean more to you.
Like I said, I can not have taken every pic I have taken with my 350D with a D40(x). Is that enough "in the field" for you?

And you can see MY pic threads to see my "in the field" use of my camera.
Try not to go into fan boy mode, and keep the discussion clean. My post has been VERY to the point and clear, if you can't get that certain features are at times actually needed, then don't blame me for thinking they ARE valuable.

Not everyone wants to limit themselves now or in the future.

[3-14159]

The Pentax lens is in fact a 50mm.

My thoughts were that if I did purchase the Pentax I would get the 18-55 that usually comes as part of the kit. To be honest it was the zoom that I was most interested in.

Ignoring the obvious focal length differences, in terms of quality how does the (15-year-old?) Sigma compare to a PENTAX DA 50-200MM F4-5.6 ED or a NIKON 70-300MM/4-5.6 D ED AF ?

Thanks once again,
π

[fionndruinne]

You limit yourself by owning a 350D. Every DSLR imposes limitations - these aren't necessarily a bad thing. They funnel creativity. The D40 picture thread should tell you something along those lines.

[SpecialK]

I think you can still get a Pentax KHundredD for $359 from Beach camera. It is a capable basic camera with a few nice features as Coldrain mentioned, though perhaps not the best choice for low light sports.

With your existing lenses you should be able (with varying levels of manual operation) to take a decent photo. Once you decide how limiting your existing lenses may be for your style of shooting, and the available alternatives, you can start to upgrade them.

While at the moment Pentax is missing some longer and faster lenses perhaps, third parties make quite a few acceptable alternatives, and Pentax has most everything up to 250mm (if you count the new medium speed 18-250 for $500). There is a 50-135 f2.8 for about $800 if you are so inclined, and I think a 60-250 f4 is coming - some day. Many people rave over the "Limited" primes and some other lenses such as the 12-24 (not cheap at $720) or even the fisheye (relatively medium priced at $420). Don't let the Pentax price scare you - it is generally less that the equivalent Canikon :-)

And the KTenD is in the last stages of availability which might provide a used upgrade path as some people will no doubt sell it to get "The Next Camera".

If you want to squeeze off a long burst to pick one good shot, the Nikon may be a better choice if only for that reason.

[swpars]

Since you already have Pentax-mount manual focus lenses, my advice to you is to get the Pentax.

But if you decide to get a D40, you will not feel limited (other assertions in this thread to the contrary). My buying decision back in October 2007 centered on the D40 vs. Rebel XT.

The reasons I got the D40 follow.

Auto ISO. If I didn't have Auto ISO (the Rebel XT doesn't) I know I would have errored on the side of an artificially high ISO for a scene (where I had time to compose only one or two shots). This would have lead to shots taken at a higher (and noisier) ISO than needed. Auto ISO ranges from 200-1600, with user-definable limits.

2.5 inch LCD screen. The 1.8 inch screen on the Rebel XT was too small for my tastes for reviewing photos. No comparison. The Rebel XTi has a 2.5 inch display, but after shooting with both (a college friend has an XTi + kit lens) I still preferred the image quality of the D40 LCD screen.

The Nikon 55-200mm VR f4-5.6. Canon doesn't yet have an equivalent in the US market. This lens sells for around $220 (I've seen it as low as $199 on Amazon.com but the price fluctuates a lot). What's more, it has image stabilization and very good optical quality. There is a little bit of light fall-off in the corners of the image at 200mm and f5.6, but it's not really noticeable in most situations. Stop down to f7.1 and there is virtually none. A photo with my 55-200mm VR is linked below.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swpars/2169806789/

The Nikon 18-200mm VR f3.5-5.6. This is the best ultra-zoom lens on the market right now for under $1000 USD. Canon doesn't have an equivalent (you have to go with a slower Sigma lens that has less effective image stabilization, for the EOS mount). I plan on possibly getting one as an all-in-one walk around lens. Had I had this lens on my recent trip to Zurich, Switzerland, I would have nailed plenty of photos I missed by only bringing my 18-55mm & 50mm f1.8 along.

The included kit lens. The Nikon kit lens is not one you'll find you need to replace immediately. While it is not as capable as a constant-aperature f2.8 lens, you get it bundled with a D40 basic kit for $470. Can't beat that.

Legacy lens compatibility. The D40 will mount virtually all Nikon lenses made since 1959. You will not get autofocus with the Nikon AF lenses (non AF-S) or metering with AI-S or older lenses.

However, manual focusing is quite easy with the 50mm f1.8 Nikkor. Here's a shot I took with it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swpars/2053159570/in/set-72157602443352843/

And if you want to use an old non-metering Nikkor lens, check out the Flickr group below. Quite a few D40 enthusiasts use these lenses (and use them very well!), which are available for very cheap on Ebay (also on www.keh.com). My goal is to grab an old 300mm f4.5 prime and have fun taking pictures of birds.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/365610@N21/

Bottom line is, the Nikon D40 was (and still is) the right digital SLR at the right time for my needs. I will only get rid of it if it breaks or if there is a really compelling digital SLR (D80 replacement near the end of life cycle? D80's replacement's replacement??) to upgrade.