So tonight I got bored, and when that happens, I do 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 = $200
- Nikon 50mm f/1.4D = $289
- Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM = $325
Result - Pentax wins by a hair. You lose out on USM offered by Canon, but you have SR through camera body. 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* = $659
- Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S DX = $1199
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS USM = $960
Result - Pentax blows the other guys away. Notice that Canikon has no VR/IS offering. 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 = $669
- Nikon 85mm f/1.8D AF = $399. F/1.4 upscale is $1024
- Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM = $355. "L" version f/1.2 = $1745
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. $355 for a 85mm (supposedly quality) prime is a great deal. 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
- Nikon 70-300 f4-5.6 VR = $479
- Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM = $549
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 = $949
- Nikon ED-IF AF 180mm f/2.8 = $760
- Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM = $695
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.
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 = $1098
- Nikon ED-IF AF-S 300mm f/4 = $1124
- Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM = $1210
Result - Pentax and Canon are close here, leaving Nikon and its VR-less lens in the dust. Win : Pentax by about $100
-------------------------------
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 = $3924
Nikon = $4240 or $4875 with the "upscale" portrait prime
Canon = $4094 or $5484 with the "upscale" portrait prime
---------------------------------
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? Weathersealing 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!