ElJamoquio, I've seen you doing the comparison before, and it's a bit of apples vs. oranges. You say that because one Nikon full frame zoom gives you the quality of several Pentax primes in one lens, therefore Nikon is cheaper. Sorry but I just can't accept that kind of reasoning.
dfujevec - Regarding prices in the EU - I could and probably am wrong about that. I was thinking about the US. Well, if Pentax priced itself out of the market in the EU, then just dump Pentax. Simples. If Pentax want the market, they should make an effort and price themselves accordingly for it, or change distributors - whatever it takes.
Edit: ok, having read your PM I understand what you are comparing. But just comparing f stops isn't enough. So you can't really compare the Canon 24mm 2.8 to the DA 15 f4 because one is an entry level lens, the other is a premium lens. The market placement comparison would be DA 15 f4 vs Canon 24mm f1.4, which is their premium 24mm. Canon chose to make their premium lens big and fast, Pentax chose small and slow. It's what I was saying earlier - it's just a different philosophy and people who want big and fast should go Canon.
Unfortunately Pentax doesn't have entry level wide angle primes, something I've pointed out many times... it's a hole in the lineup IMHO. A "plastic wide-tastic" 17,18,or 19mm f/2.8 would appease that need, for sure, I think
Or even the optics of the old 20 2.8 in a plastic DA shell, would be very well received, I'm sure! The FA version of the 20 2.8 is still priced very high...