Re: Pentax K to Nikon adaptor?
Again, the lens flange problem is why we can't use Canon glass on Nikons, but we can use Nikkors on Canon (the 17-35mm f/2.8D AF-S looks great on the Canon full-frame bodies).
Zeiss glass for most Contax mounts can't fit Nikon, again because of the distances involved. Hasselblad Zeiss does fit with an adapter, and works with matrix metering if you input the data in (as reported to Digital Darrell; I can't substantiate this). I want to pick up a Hasselblad adapter and stick one of their "odd-length-on-35mm" lenses (probably a nice used copy from KEH or eBay) in front of my D2H, but the adapter's fairly expensive. Of course there's the Zeiss ZF stuff, but those are awfully expensive for what you get; aside from the build quality and the long focusing throws (bad for photojournalism), I've seen no evidence that the AF Nikkors are inferior to them.
On the 200mm f/1.8L...
Nikon makes the 200mm f/2.0 VR, which is only 1/3 stop slower, and is considered superior to the Canon lens. The Canon 200 f/1.8 is slow-focusing when compared to modern L glass, lacks IS, and involved toxic glass elements (someone said it contains lead). As far as I know, the Nikkor is sharper, lighter, has better bokeh, is sharper, and doesn't run afoul of environmental regulations for manufacturing. For portraits on DX, it's a bit long... we just need those sensors Nikon's testing that Thom Hogan mentioned as being full-frame to find their way into production Nikon bodies; might as well do it sometime in the near future, as the D2X/S is pushing into diffraction's hell zone where it shows up very clearly due to the photosite size/pitch.
|