Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor These minute advantages pale in the face of the advantages of being able to get inexpensive 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 50/2.5 macro, 85/1.8 autofocus lenses for Canon cameras. Each of these costs under $360. What does Pentax offer under this price bar? A 35/2.4 and a 50/1.4. We don't even have 24 or 28 mm lenses at any price range - you need to hit the used market to get those focal lengths.
My point was that if someone wants to buy Canon, you're not going to change their mind by pointing to some manual focus lens bargains. And if they are inclined to use MF lenses, they can do that on their Canon too - Pentax may do that better, but that's not good enough to ignore the advantages of the EF mount platform. Few people buy DSLRs to use exclusively with inexpensive old MF lenses.
I understand. See above. Canon users are not that much excited about old MF lenses because they have access to inexpensive AF ones. Nikon has their share of inexpensive lenses too. So selling Pentax on account of access to MF bargains isn't going to work well - it might work in some cases, but not many. WR, SR, build quality, ergonomy, sensor performance - those are better arguments. Backward compatibility is overrated though - it means nothing to a new user that wants AF and needs all the technological help he can get to obtain decent pictures without being a great photographer. And it's not that perfect either due to the mount crippling.
These things come up in open discussions where people recommend multiple brands. We are here on a Pentax forum and it is easy to get blinded by one-sided Pentax arguments. But it's worth looking at what other brands have to offer, the same way we would like prospective Canon/Nikon customers to consider what Pentax has to offer. A good starting place is to look at the lens lineups of Canon or Nikon, check their prices, read reviews - you'll get a different perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of the Pentax platform.
Excellent points regarding the current position of lens offerings for the person considering entry into the Pentax system.
I am the 'Pentax pusher' in the local forums which is not brand orientated but has a heany Canikony presence, and this is precisely the difficulties I run into when trying to convince people that Pentax is a viable option. The other problem of course is the 'unknown brand' problem.
If a person is looking at buying into a system at lower cost while keeping nice things like DOF control; fast aperture with AF , CanNikon does offer this better with 35/1.8; 50/1.8; 85/1.8.
The argument is "
But Pentax has better built and quality 35/2; 35/2.4; 50/1.4 at fair prices!"
Don't forget that all this happens 'on-paper' via text on the internet for people who know nothing about build quality and stuff, so no one can actually get a real feel of all this.
Pentax lenses and system are also much smaller and less of an encumbrance over a long day of shooting, but this is also very hard to bring across over the internet (ie. people just have to see this physically for themselves)
All that is need to sway their decision is that Canikon has cheap primes that have a fast 'F' number which can give them "bokeh" ( the often mis-used term)
and do nice portraits with.
Only when a potential buyer only wants kit lenses; Don't care for primes; Know that they don't mind more costly/better quality lenses;
done their research about Pentax;
Or see the value in Pentax cameras; does the argument sway in Pentax's favor.
I think too many folks here have too many legacy lenses that they forget that newbies really need those affordable but good performing primes
with AF