The real problem?

Lots of reasons are suggested for the bout of switchers we've had lately: AF being too slow, or unreliable; continuous shooting framerates; or just people who haven't taken photographs of the quality they expected and want to blame the equipment. I thought I could suggest another reason, with reference to one of the 'reasons to own Pentax' namely the FA77 Limited.

Don't worry, this isn't an anti-FA77 trolling thread: it is a lovely lens, definitely one of the best AF lenses ever made. But is it better than owning all of the following and having £140 left over?

*Nikon 35 f1.8 (£169)
*Nikon 50 f1.8 (£116)
*Nikon 85 f1.8 (£330)

Now I know the FA77 has truly fabulous build quality, and is compact - but are there enough people for whom compactness and finish are important enough to pay the current Pentax prices? As I say, I'm not knocking the FA77 but in image quality is the Nikon likely to be less than half as good?

Of course Pentax has other advantages - ergonomic bodies, weather sealing [though not with the Limited primes of course], and build quality. But a nice body which you can't afford lenses for is a bit pointless, no?

You aren't comparing like with like. Those are bog-standard primes, not top-quality ones.

There's plenty of affordable (new) primes for Pentax, e.g. DA21/DA40/FA50...

If you wanted to find something comparable to the FA77, the nearest Nikon lens is the 85mm 1.4 - which is (drum roll) £899, so actually £150 more (SRS new prices).

So - your question should be - 1 super lens OR 3 cheap ones. Brand is irrelevant.

It's great to have the DAltd lenses to aspire to, and heck they aren't that expensive considering how well made they are. But yes it would be great to have more 'budget' primes to pick from too.

The Photozone review of the FA77 said that it is - in IQ - essentially comparable to the Nikon 85 f1.8 - that was the primary comparison I was trying to make (ie that the price difference between those two lenses is so great you can get another two admittedly cheap-and-cheerful primes and still have money left over)

But then, if you have a Pentax body to affix aforementioned lenses, you wouldn't be daft enough to buy the Nikon prime(s), would you?

But if you have a Nikon body, I believe you can fit a Pentax lens to it.

So it's a no-brainer, Nikon D3X + Pentax FA 77mm Ltd + adapter it is then.

Nikon has a longer registration distance than Pentax, so your dastardly plan wouldn't work (okay okay I suppose it could be done but without infinity focus).

I think its Canons you can fit Pentax lenses to, not Nikons...

...does some digging : See here. Can put Pentax on Canon but only M42 on Nikon. Pentax also fits 4/3 and u4/3's it seems...

You can get a PK to Nikon converter. It uses an additional lens inside the converter.

You can also get Nikon to Pentax.

Yes, and IIRC only the APS-C Canons (the mirror gets caught on part of the back of the lens on FF models - not that I'd ever be buying one anyway!)

There is quite a little cottage industry over on MFLenses where people shave a few millimeters off the bottom of the mirrors of full frame Canon 5Ds so it wont foul the back of non-Canon lenses.