Originally posted by house There's plenty of lenses missing from both ff and apsc lineup. As a previous commenter said they are also old and lacking modern featured and performance.
The limiteds are great if looking for that performance profile.
I look on B&H at Nikon's APS-C lineup. The only APS-C specific lenses I see that Pentax doesn't have a pretty equivalent lens for are the 18-105, The 10-24, the Fisheye prime (though I'd argue our fisheye zoom is more or less equivalent), maybe you could argue the 35/1.8 since our 35/f2 is a full frame lens, but it's smaller than theirs. They have a cheap 10-20, and our 11-18 is very high end, but we have access to the old Sigma, so that's kind of a wash.
Nikon don't have the fisheye zoom, the 14 Prime, the 15 prime, the 21 prime, no pancake 40, no super cheap compact 50/1.8, no super cheap 35/2.4, no *55/1.4, no 70mm prime, no 200, no 300. No 50-135, our 55-300 is more versatile than their 70-300, they don't have an ultra-wide f2.8 for APS-C, no ultra-compact 18-50, no 20-40 Limited, no 60-250 f4, Are any of their APS-C lenses even WR? Are any of their APS-C Cameras? (I genuinely don't know).
Help me understand how Pentax's APS-C lens lineup is more limited than Nikons? No one gripes at Nikon for it.
I see their full frame lineup has quite a few lenses we don't have, for example I'd think the 24-120 f4 like Nikon has would be a big seller, they have tilt/shift and some really nice fast tele lenses. So yeah, if you have the budget for a system with $3000 tilt shift lenses, absolutely go Nikon. I think the average hobby photographer is better off with APS-C, and for APS-C, a person is better off with our lens selection.