[elliott]

Oh, in this case, Pentax just lost an old customer . On the contrary Nikon got a new customer .

So you're spending money on new Nikon gear because used Pentax gear was too expensive for you? I guess that makes sense, the 70-200mm f2.8 you wanted is only $2400.

[Ex Finn.]

So you're spending money on new Nikon gear because used Pentax gear was too expensive for you?

Maybe his calculator is broken.

[benhai]

That's an example of how a silly wish turns out to be a big gain for another company.

Many the time, you don't want to spend the money but you have the money.

[benhai]

I still like pentax cameras and wish the more quality new lens can turn the used lens market to be cheaper.

[VisualDarkness]

That's an example of how a silly wish turns out to be a big gain for another company.

Many the time, you don't want to spend the money but you have the money.

But why do you think that Nikon is better in this matter? As we all said Pentax probably got the best backwards compatibility wasn't that what you wanted? Do you think Nikon cares less about money than Pentax? I just don't see the logic in your accusations.

[benhai]

Nikon semi pro bodies can meter Ai manual lens without green button step down and there are more and cheaper choices for older Nikon lenses in the US. But pentax body is much smaller. With pan cake lenses I can put pentax dslr into my coat pocket.

[Sagitta]

This comes at a cost... 3rd party will normally be cheaper. And I have found that the sigma 70-200 is better anyway. AF is faster, it's decently sharp, it's very well built. The only drawbacks I could identify are colour reproduction which is subjective - I find sigma slightly warmer but less saturation in in the greens than the pentaxs' which I personally think is better for skin tones, Weather sealing and asthetic appearance.

The lable on the lens should not determin a lens' worth yet it seems to anyway.

Shhhhhh! *continues stockpiling his Sears gear*

[Timd]

Another reason old Nikon lenses are cheap is they have no stabilisation. With in body stabilisation, all old lenses are stabilised on Pentax. No demand, low price.

[TaoMaas]

That's an example of how a silly wish turns out to be a big gain for another company.

Good luck to you. Eventually, you'll understand what everyone has been trying to tell you here...but it won't come until you've wasted quite a bit of money, I suspect.

[kenyee]

For my company, we sponsor lots of university programs just to let students to get familiar the use of our chips, expensive and cheap. Students are not our customers yet but they will in charge of what to use and what to buy in the not far future.

Entirely different. If a student uses your chip via something like TI's Launchpad program, they get used to program it and will influence a big return later if their company is influenced into using it. So what company do you work at? Just curious. I do SW/HW engineering work for my day job...

In contrast, what would Pentax gain if there were a good used zoom lens market? If you're that frugal that you'd only buy used lenses,, you'd most likely buy an inexpensive body. Bodies aren't very profitable because they change as much as computers, but lenses are. So Pentax's net gain from you as a user is low compared to someone that buys a lot of new lenses. Because of the high cost of their lenses, Canikon has traditionally attracted a lot of well heeled users, who also have a tendency to upgrade their gear a lot so there is a bigger used market, but their gear is also more expensive. How much did you say you were going to spend on Canikon gear?

And Pentax does listen to users a lot more than Canikon...their bodies are craploads better UI's, both in button placement and intuitive modes like TAv. They just don't have massive budgets like they do because their volume is a lot lower....in the embedded world, that's like saying Analog Devices should do a $5 Launchpad like TI does, but they don't have nearly the volume they do...

[zapp]

I prefer hanging a lens that matches the camera brand for sure .

You heared all the arguments... 2.8 zooms from Pentax are not for you.

[benhai]

I believe in myself and that's why I can still waste lots of money without going to bankruptcy. It's a hobby with good/bad self control . A product's overall quality is a system level thing. The whole system usability for each individual is the key for each of us to determine. For a company the statistics results of our final choices determines the product. You can think about this as setup the bait and use a net to capture fish. Your bait should be attractive to as many as possible fishes that you'd like to catch.

Well, that's my personal opinion and it works very well for my hobby.

[TaoMaas]

Well, that's my personal opinion and it works very well for my hobby.

I'm glad it's working for you. I got the impression that it had led you down what you felt was the wrong path...hence this thread.

[benhai]

I still like pentax cameras and I still have one pentax AF film body and a kit lens with it. I just don't want to see it's behind. Pentax SLR was the first serious camera I bought when my salary was only around $50 a month .

[MrCynical]

Oh, sorry! I can't spend that amount of money for new price.

I'm comparing used price. My point is that many pentax old lenses are over priced. I wish the price can go to reasonable. And this needs help from Pentax to produce more cheaper f2.8 modern lenses.

Those particular lenses are overpriced in the used market because most of them break (or their SDM does anyway) before their users get round to selling them. So working ones are rare, and rare things people want are pricey