reviving an old thread, given that the Pentax K-x is in the market and a lot of individuals (such as myself) is looking at purchasing it and other than comparing the body, the suite of lens plays a more crucial role in the long run.
credit goes to cputeq for putting this together, i found this forum through this thread and I feel for make benefit of soon-to-be owners of the K-x and other Pentax cameras I have updated the post to reflect current prices (21st January 2010), factoring in the price increase of Pentax FA lens in February 2009 and current Canon & Nikon prices.
Prices are taken from adorama or amazon, whichever is lower.
So tonight I got bored, and when that happens, I do goofy things.
***likewise, I felt like doing goofy things.***
----
I decided to compare a "standard" lens lineup between Nikon, Pentax, and Canon. Disregarding body prices, I wanted to see just how much more expensive, if at all, one brand would be over another.
After probably too little thought, I decided to simulate a "standard" lens layout, consisting of the following lenses:
1) A Fast-50
2) Wide Zoom (around 16-50mm or close) f/2.8 speed
3) The "Portrait Prime" - Pentax does this is 77mm, Canon and Nikon 85mm
4) Cheapo Telephoto - A consumer lens going from around 50/70mm-300mm
5) A fast telephoto - 180/200mm f/2.8
6) A fast long telephoto - 300mm f/4
Before I begin the comparison, here are some caveats:
- Since Pentax has a smaller selection, I used them as the "common denominator" and kept the lens choices as similar as possible to the Pentax specs
- No grey market or refurbished items
- When possible, I used the "VR" or "IS" variant of the Nikon / Canon lens
- It's possible I missed a lens -- Canon and Nikon lens listings are absurdly convoluted!
So, let us begin the math! Prices gleaned from Adorama or Amazon.
Fast 50 - f/1.4
All lenses were fairly similar here. Notice the Canon has USM, but neither Nikon or Canon have the VR/IS variant.
- Pentax FA50mm f/1.4 = $359.95 [$200 in 08] +80%
- Nikon 50mm f/1.4D = $319.95 [$289 in 08] +10.7%
- Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM = $349.84 [$325 in 08] +7.6%
Result - Pentax no longer have the price advantage. and as cputeq says, You get SR through camera body, but not that big of a deal with a lens this short and fast, though.
Wide Zoom - F/2.8
Here is one of the largest price discrepancies of the entire lineup. For whatever reason, Canon, and especially Nikon, charge an arm and a leg for this range and speed of zoom.
- Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8 ED-AL DA* = $744 ($659 in 08) +12.9%
- Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S DX = $1339 ($1199 in 08) +11.7%
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS USM = $1018.99 ($960 in 08) +6.1%
Result - Pentax blows the other guys away. Even considering Pentax's QC problems with the 16-50mm, it's hard not to notice the huge pricing difference.
Portrait Prime
This is probably the most controversial range, as many people consider anything from 40mm to 100mm to be "portrait length". I decided to stick with the lenses normally thought of to be decent moderate telephoto portrait lenses.
Notice that Canon and Nikon actually have (at least) two versions of their lenses here (the normal and the upscale), whereas Pentax stays with their upscale Limited lens only.
- Pentax Limited 77mm f/1.8 = $784.95 ($669 in 08) +17.3%
- Consumer -
- Nikon 85mm f/1.8D AF = $449.95 ($399 in 08) +12.8%
- Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM = $370.98 ($355 in 08) +4.5%
- Pro -
- Nikon 85mm f/1.4D IF AF = $1224.95 ($1024 in 08) +19.6%
- Canon EF 85mm f1.2L II USM = $1847.56 ($1745 in 08) +5.9%
Result = Hard to say. We're comparing one of Pentax's top dog lenses to two "consumer" primes or two "pro" primes. If we consider Pro vs Pro, Pentax comes out on top, and by a huge margin compared to Canon. If we consider the "consumer" versions that Canon and Nikon offer, the outcome is more difficult to quantify, but I will give the win to Canon $370.98 for a 85mm (supposedly quality) prime is a great deal. ***this still holds true, given that the Pentax went up in price by 17% vs 4.5% of the Canon.***
Cheapo Telephoto
Ahh, this one is much easier! Let's stick to the consumer versions of a telephoto zoom and see where we get (50/70mm - 300mm, variable aperature)
- Pentax 55-300 f/4-5.8 = $349.95 ($349 in 08) +0.3%
- Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR = $539.95 ($479 in 08) +12.7%
- Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM = $542.97 ($549 in 08) -1.1%
Result = Pentax wins by a hair. You get a wider capability but lose a smidge of speed with Pentax. All three lenses offer image stability and Canon's actually has USM. Fast Telephoto (180/200mm F/2.8) Prime - Pentax DA* 200mm f/2.8 = $939 ($949 in 08) -1%
- Nikon ED-IF AF 180mm f/2.8 = $899.95 ($760 in 08) +18.4%
- Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM = $769 ($695 in 08) +10.6%
Result: At first it looks bad...Pentax is charging several hundred dollars more for this type of lens. Let's look closer, though -- Notice something missing? Perhaps two letters in the lens names? Yes, that's right, Canon and nikon lenses lack VR/IS! This is important, as now we're dealing with some long focal lengths. I'll call this one a tie - Pentax definitely loses on price, but wins due to sealing and SR through the body. Still, I feel Pentax is overcharging for their telephoto primes. ***Personally, I give a slight edge to Pentax, given that the pricing of both Nikon and Canon have caught up.*** Fast Long Telephoto (300mm f/4)
Finally, our last section! This was a bit difficult to search out, mainly because it doesn't appear Canon and Nikon are fond of 300mm primes, but instead offer fast zooms in this area.
- Pentax DA* 300mm f/4 = $1119.95 ($1098 in 08) +2%
- Nikon ED-IF AF-S 300mm f/4 = $1484.95 ($1124 in 08) +32%
- Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM = $1279 ($1210 in 08) +5.7%
Result - Pentax and Canon are close here, leaving Nikon and its VR-less lens in the dust. Win : Pentax by about $159
-------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
So let's assume you have way more money than I do, and decide to buy the lens loadouts (minus the bodies). How much do we pay?
Pentax = $4297.80 ($3924 in 08) +9.5% avg.
Nikon = $5033.75 ($4240 in 08) +18.7% avg.
w/"upscale" portrait prime = $5808.75 ($4875 in 08) +19.1% avg.
Canon = $4330.78 ($4094 in 08) +5.8% avg.
w/"upscale" portrait prime = $5807.36 ($5484 in 08) +5.9% avg.
---------------------------------
Analysis:
To me, it appears Pentax still retains "value" more than Canon or Nikon. Let's analyze why:
1) Assuming you have a decently modern body,
all the lenses will offer image stability. Not so with the Canon/Nikon variants.
2) Three of the listed Pentax Lenses are weather sealed.
3) Assuming we're buying "the best" portrait lens, Pentax's Limited 77mm is a steal compared to Nikon, and Canon should be charged with highway robbery.
4) Pentax seems to be overcharging for their long primes. Sure, their primes "have" image stability, but this is in the body and doesn't cost Pentax a dime to use. So why are their primes actually more expensive? Weather-sealing perhaps? Pentax's insistence on staying with short ranges, as seen by their complete lack of any modern lens past 300mm? Who knows.
***
Hope you enjoyed the read!