[dfujevec]

I was looking Foto Erhardt page and I made some price comparisons. I don`t like zooms so I "buy" some Pentax lenses like FA 35/2 FA50/1,4 and FA77/1,8. Fortunately I was just playing because this "game" would cost me 1861 eur. Just for playing I took Nikon lenses of same focal lenght (77mm was replaced with 85/1,8) and price was 992 eur. Preaty much the same prices for Canon lenses.
As a conclusion I have to say that I am lucky that I use only old manual focus lenses, otherwise I would change camera system in a week. This Pentax price policy is not normal any more.

[danielausparis]

please don't compare pentax limiteds with regular lenses of other brands. Its a different market, as you noticed. Limiteds are loaded with special pixie dust!

[paperbag846]

The real problem is that pentax does not offer much in the consumer prime category... it's a couple cheap zooms, and lots of very expensive glass.

I think the reason they don't offer the cheap lenses is because of the backwards compatibility, but if they sold some cheap 1.8's i think they would sell really well.

35mm 1.8 for 200 would be a DREAM. Nikon can do it, so can Pentax .

[twitch]

Have you seen the prices for the Nikon constant aperture zooms? They make the prices of the Pentax DA* zooms look dirt cheap.

Yes I would recommend Pentax, I love my limiteds & my DA* zoom

[dfujevec]

please don't compare pentax limiteds with regular lenses of other brands. Its a different market, as you noticed. Limiteds are loaded with special pixie dust!

Limited is just on lens FA77, but I don`t see why I can not compare to other brand 85/1,8.
FA35 and FA50 are mostly plastic made lenses designed 15 years ago.

[Ash]

Could you please give us the price breakdown for each lens? I find it hard to believe these 3 lenses cost 1800+ euros...

I could get all 3 lenses for less than 1800 Australian dollars!

[Miguel]

Consider that using "price" as the sole criterion for evaluating lenses for camera platforms may not be the best or most useful approach.

And your comparing a Pentax 77mm to someone else's 85mm is, well, flawed. Not only are they significantly different focal lengths, but you are not viewing the Pentax prime lenses as a whole system.

I just added a Canon 7D and am shaping my collection of lenses for both Pentax and Canon. Let's skip the zooms since you are interested in single focal length lenses. If you compare what each brand offers, you will see that Pentax is unique in this market space. Sure the other brands make super fast primes (24mm f1.4 anyone?), but for the most part they are of standard focal lengths (24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm), big, and heavy. And usually expensive.

Pentax has had those offerings in the past, but their current lineup is simply more diverse. First, the focal lengths are different and useful: 15mm, 21mm, 31mm, 35mm, 40mm, 43mm, 70mm, 77mm to name a few highly regarded primes. Secondly, the sizes are significantly smaller and lighter. Just research the DA LTD 40mm, 21mm, & 70mm for starters. Thirdly, there are just more single focal length choices of lenses made during the past five years--a remarkable achievement since Pentax is a gnat compared to these larger competitors. Fourth, the optical quality of all the lenses I called out stands with or exceeds most of the "similar" offerings from other brands. Just search the threads in this forum.

Some folks don't care about small size or even optical quality, just having "Nikon" or "Canon" or "Zeiss" on the lens suffices. I think you have to decide what's important for you in a camera system. Do realize that photography that involves interchangeable lenses is a black hole for everyone's bank account. It always has been.

M

[dfujevec]

Could you please give us the price breakdown for each lens? I find it hard to believe these 3 lenses cost 1800+ euros...

I could get all 3 lenses for less than 1800 Australian dollars!

Foto Erhardt - Digitalkameras,Spiegelreflexkameras,Videocamcorder und mehr

Note that in my country this prices are even higher!

[dfujevec]

Consider that using "price" as the sole criterion for evaluating lenses for camera platforms may not be the best or most useful approach.

And your comparing a Pentax 77mm to someone else's 85mm is, well, flawed. Not only are they significantly different focal lengths, but you are not viewing the Pentax prime lenses as a whole system.

I just added a Canon 7D and am shaping my collection of lenses for both Pentax and Canon. Let's skip the zooms since you are interested in single focal length lenses. If you compare what each brand offers, you will see that Pentax is unique in this market space. Sure the other brands make super fast primes (24mm f1.4 anyone?), but for the most part they are of standard focal lengths (24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm), big, and heavy. And usually expensive.

Pentax has had those offerings in the past, but their current lineup is simply more diverse. First, the focal lengths are different and useful: 15mm, 21mm, 31mm, 35mm, 40mm, 43mm, 70mm, 77mm to name a few highly regarded primes. Secondly, the sizes are significantly smaller and lighter. Just research the DA LTD 40mm, 21mm, & 70mm for starters. Thirdly, there are just more single focal length choices of lenses made during the past five years--a remarkable achievement since Pentax is a gnat compared to these larger competitors. Fourth, the optical quality of all the lenses I called out stands with or exceeds most of the "similar" offerings from other brands. Just search the threads in this forum.

Some folks don't care about small size or even optical quality, just having "Nikon" or "Canon" or "Zeiss" on the lens suffices. I think you have to decide what's important for you in a camera system. Do realize that photography that involves interchangeable lenses is a black hole for everyone's bank account. It always has been.

M

Nice writen!
I use old Takumars (and some K and M lenses) and I am very happy. So this is not my problem at the moment.
I don`t care what is writen on the lens, but I don`t thing that one 21mm lens need to be more expensive just for being 21 instead of 20. Opticaly Pentax lenses are not superior to other lenses. They are small and that is great, but they are also slow and that is not so great.

[Miguel]

Nice writen!
I use old Takumars (and some K and M lenses) and I am very happy. So this is not my problem at the moment.
I don`t care what is writen on the lens, but I don`t thing that one 21mm lens need to be more expensive just for being 21 instead of 20. Opticaly Pentax lenses are not superior to other lenses. They are small and that is great, but they are also slow and that is not so great.

First, thank you.
Secondly, using your counter-example, I question whether an 18 year old, 20mm f2.8 non-L (consumer-level) Canon lens provides the same optical quality as the DA 21mm. And even if it does, what are you getting? It's not just size, but weight (or lack of weight) that matters in the marketplace. The Canon weighs 14.3 oz; the Pentax DA 21mm weighs 5.5 oz with hood. That difference is significant to me and I don't think it's unreasonable that it carries some value in the marketplace cost wise--especially if you are expecting to carry a few other lenses. The 2.8 vs. 3.2 aperture speed difference, to me, doesn't matter much in that focal length.

Oh, BTW, please do show me a faster non-Pentax lens that weighs under 8oz in that focal length. I'll go easy on you and let you throw in the 15mm, 40mm, and 70-ish mm focal lengths as well. They are "superior" optically because no one else does it.

M

[Rondec]

Pentax is not a very good buy in certain countries and yours sounds like it is one of the places where it is super expensive. I remember someone posting price comparisons between Pentax and Canon in South Africa and the prices for Pentax were probably double those of Canon.

In the US, things are much more equivalent, with the exception of the high end zooms. Nikon 17-55 f2.8 plus a 70-200 f2.8 VR II would run you about 4000 dollars together here. That's pretty steep in my book.

[Lowell Goudge]

the whole problem with this comparison, and all comparisons, is that by selecting only a few lenses out of a complete line up, anyone can pick lenses to prove what ever point they are trying to make.

If you consider the OP's sepection of a 35, 50 amd 77mm, he has only really capability for portraits, and similar.

In todays world of ASP-C sensors on a pentax camera, and I repeate this approach from time to time on this very forum,, a complete system needs to consider spanning 10-12 mm at the wide end up to 135-200 mm at the long end, and a means to reach 400mm if there is interest in wild life.

The OP has picked only 3 lenses in a very tight band, and ignored the rest. In fact, with the 3 lenses he has quoted, he would be better off with a low zoom ratio P&S not a DSLR. especially some of the new larger sensor P&S cameras.

Just my $0.02

[Marc Sabatella]

I'm also guessing he skewed the comparison by choosing the 50/1.4 for Pentax but substituting a slower / inferior / correspondingly cheaper 50/1.8 for the other systems.

Anyhow, that aside, with the 85 and the 35, you've successfully cherry-picked the two lenses with the largest differential in favor of Canon & Nikon. Pick other lenses to compare and the difference goes away or turns out to be equally lopsided in favor of Pentax.

And as mentioned, often, there really is no direct comparison . Often, it's a large and either heavy or plastic or both older design consumer model left over from the film days - with all the compromises inherent on using such a lens on digital - being compared to versus a small and light lens modern design optimized for digital. The main way Canon and Nikon keep things cheap is by not bothering to actually put out any reasonably priced new primes that are better than whatever old stuff they can find to have lying around. The one obvious exception, of course, being Nikon's 35. A significant exception, to be sure, but still, that just makes it that much more obvious that this *is* an exception.

[dfujevec]

I took Nikon 35/2 lens that cost in Europe 298 eur. There is also 35/1,8 lens that cost 178 eur.
Pentax FA35/2 cost 679 eur and DA35/2,8 cost 446 eur.
For 50mm I took Nikon 50/1,4G wich is the best Nikon and cost 332 eur. There is also 50/1,4d that cost 296 eur. Pentax old FA50/1,4 costs 347eur.
As for 85mm, since Pentax don`t have this kind of lens I took 77/1,8 that cost 835 eur or we have DA70 that cost 540 eur. Nikon 85/1,8 cost 388 eur.

[1marek]

I understand where you're coming from, but you're comparing lenses that will AF on your camera (Pentax) with those that won't (Nikon; with the exception od 35mm 1,8). For you this may be ok but I, on the other hand, *AM* willing to pay more for AF, and if I'd be comparing non-AF Nikon glass with Pentax's line-up, i would take into account older Pentax glass that is also much cheaper...