On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: > One of my coworkers has a D700. He and I spend a lot of time talking > about photography. This morning he mentioned that he'd made a wishlist > of lenses he wants. Pretty close to the top of the list is a Nikon > 105mm f/2.8 macro. > > I was frustrated at the DFA 100/2.8 macro running about $500 bucks, > but the Nikon seems to go for about $950. I often envy the low light > sensitivity of his camera, but I certainly don't envy what he has to > pay for glass. Granted, this lens has VR and an internal motor, both > of which would drive up the cost. I'm sure Dave could also enlighten > us on other benefits of Nikkor glass. > > This is by no means a "slam Nikon" post, if I had the money, I'd have > a D700 in my kit too. Until I *need* the extra performance, I'll > certainly enjoy the performance per dollar of Pentax gear. > > In other news, it looks like my camera and lens ship from Pentax > today. The UPS tracking page says that they have the paperwork. A > friend wants to do a portrait shoot on Saturday, and unfortunately it > probably won't be back until next week. >
The Nikon 105VR is notoriously overpriced. It replaced the 105/2.8D Macro which cost slightly more than the D-FA does and is comparable in performance (1:1 screwdriver-drive macro with aperture ring). Most macro shooters prefer the older version as it can be used on bellows or reversed unlike the newer version. As a rule, Nikon users don't pay more for their glass than Pentax users do with the exception of the FA50/1.4 which is a steal. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
