[normhead]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

That's often cited, but really not true. Compare some random Pentax lens to its Canon equivalent (e.g. 50 f/1.8, 16-50 vs 17-55, 16-85, 18-135, 55-300 vs 55-250 etc.) and you will find that Pentax rarely has a price advantage in lenses, often it's actually more pricey.

What you compared the numbers and you didn't post?

I'm going to do one comparison.

Canon 100 macro.. Canon EF 100 ƒ2.8 - $849

Pentax D FA 100 macro $399

I just picked the 100 macro randomly, it doesn't really encourage me to head off down the Canon is cheaper path.

OK, you talked me into it, one more...

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens $114
Pentax smc DA 50mm f/1.8 Lens $116

Based on my sample of two lenses, Canon competes with Pentax on plastic fantastics, but not on specialized high quality glass.

One more for a tie breaker

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Lens $749
Pentax DA* 200 ƒ2.8 $ 725

OK, you have to win by two...

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens $599
Pentax 35mm DA L F2.4 AL Lens $104

I'd be interested to see what you come up with to make your case.

[pathdoc]

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens $599
Pentax 35mm DA L F2.4 AL Lens $104

Just for the sake of something more equivalent, I did a very quick e-bay search, and the Pentax 35mm f/2.0 FA lens was nowhere more expensive than $425, much less if you are prepared to take a chance on used, and I have seen cheaper prices new (B&H and Adorama both list it as no longer available, but I've seen older links to new prices for < $400 and Ricoh are still listing it as being in the lineup).

[FantasticMrFox]

What you compared the numbers and you didn't post?

I've got a report to hand in in three hours that isn't completely finished yet, but I cannot resist a good challenge

First of all, if you want to compare Canon against the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, use the Pentax FA 35 f/2. The DA 35 f/2.4 has a different aperture and totally different build quality and AF. In Germany the Canon retails at €479, the Pentax at €599.

I will be using numbers from amazon.de.

Pentax 50 f/1.8: €120
Canon 50 f/1.8: €115

Pentax 16-50 f/2.8: €900
Canon 17-55 f/2.8: €700

Pentax 18-135: €440
Canon 18-135: €325

Pentax 16-85: €635
Canon 16-85: €639

Pentax HD DA 55-300 WR: €350
Canon 55-250: €185

Pentax 40 f/2.8 (XS): €292
Canon 40 f/2.8: €132

We can obviously argue individual image quality etc., and many of the Pentax lenses have weather sealing which the Canon mostly do not have, but in return some of the Pentax lenses have screw drive whereas the Canon have quicker STM, so it's roughly comparable.

And my point was not that Canon is always cheaper, but simply that in general Pentax in-body IS does not make their lenses any cheaper.

[mohb]

Pentax makes good cameras that seem to sell in sufficient numbers to keep the bean counters at Ricoh happy, what more could we want?

[FantasticMrFox]

And as you just claimed that Canon doesn't compete with Pentax price wise on high quality glass:

Pentax 300 f/4: €1,179
Canon 300 f/4: €1,164

(This time from a price comparison website, because Amazon Germany doesn't seem to list the Pentax).

And you listed the 200 f/2.8, which in Germany can be had for the following:

Pentax: €999
Canon: €649

[Kevwaly]

Pentax has it's strengths, but those strengths often hidden to most due to lack of advertising budget. I believe with the 645Z, Theta360, & K1 ...Ricoh is doing WONDERFUL things for sure! The one area that I see that Pentax is obviously behind the big 2 is AF and tracking. (Sports/Action photography) It also seems Pentax is always in the shadows (instead of in the lead) when it comes to sensors. They are always releasing last years "new" for the big 2 as far as sensor. I realize with budget this is a must. I also realize this is not a bad thing. Just observations. Breakthroughs in some things... just sensor "seconds". For profit. I understand that.

[Nass]

Some of it is also the camera salesmen in camera shops, and camera shops themselves. Here in the UK I can't always find Pentax represented in the local camera shop so of course if it's not there it doesn't get sold. Also, the salesmen in the shops don't always have such a high opinion of Pentax - they say things like 'even Sigma won't make lenses for them anymore because they've gone downhill so much' (this was to me a couple of weeks ago when I was browsing).

[normhead]

You say weather sealing is equivalent to not having screw drive?

But that being said, you posted some crazy numbers.

B& H numbers

DA 40 XS - $227
Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens - $179

But I can get the Pentax on Amazon for $124

B&H price, I'm using the same store for both prices, not cherry picking
Pentax DA*300 - $849 -$500 cheaper and weather sealing.
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Lens= 1,349

Your comparison of the 55-300 WR to the 55-250? Come on, really, the 55-300 is best in class for consumer lenses going to 300mm, almost DA* quality. The comparison for the Canon 55-250 is the Pentax 50-200, at $200.

At B&H the Pentax price for the 18-135 which is weather sealed and a very fast ring motor is $449
The Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens, which is not weather sealed is $559

I'm not sure if your prices are a product of European prices, or you're cherry picking prices, high against low. But every check I've done using NA prices has turned up a different result from what you've posted, and way more in favour of Pentax producing better quality at lower prices.

But who knows, maybe what you say is true for European buyers. It's certainly not even close to being true in North America,

But, any way, get your paper done. Every one checks the prices for what's relevant to them, so general random comparison's aren't much use to the average buyer.

[bertwert]

I posted this in another thread a month or so ago.
Here are just a few , pentax is cheaper and I'm not mentioning quality.

	Pentax	Canon	Nikon
300/4	853.69	1299.00	1309.00
100/2.8 Macro	379.00	549.00
50/1.8	89.89	99.00	131.95

[veato]

as an amateur have recently experienced the situation where something I want simply isn't available.

I would agree in terms of first party support but once you factor in 3rd party I think most (realistically obtainable) bases are covered again. For UWA there's the Pentax 10-17, Sigma 8-16, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 10-24, Pentax 12-24 and a selection of primes from 4.5 to 15mm.

[aleonx3]

... so of course if it's not there it doesn't get sold. .

You mean like grocery shopping? ... For techno gadgets, it is quite different, some people do the research on line and then order it on line... and then there are some who want to get the "touch-and-feel" in the store and then order it on line.

[FantasticMrFox]

I would agree in terms of first party support but once you factor in 3rd party I think most (realistically obtainable) bases are covered again. For UWA there's the Pentax 10-17, Sigma 8-16, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 10-24, Pentax 12-24 and a selection of primes from 4.5 to 15mm.

You are right, there is a selection. But I am looking for a zoom lens that I can use for night sky and landscape photography, that takes filters, has a fast aperture and is below €500. The Pentax 10-17 is a fish-eye, the Sigma 8-16 doesn't take filters, the Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 10-24 are my best bet but are not fast and need a lot of stopping down to give reasonable edge performance, plus with the Sigma's there is a lot of concern of sample variation and decentering, and the Pentax 12-24 seems to be a great lens but is £700 here in the UK and €865 in my native Germany

And that's why I am disappointed that the reputedly very sharp Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 isn't available for Pentax. At about €475, being fast and sharp and taking filters, that would've been the one

I guess I will just forget about a fast lens, save up and wait for the Pentax 12-24's successor that's on the roadmap. It will probably have HD coatings, weather sealing and DC focusing, if it's a constant f/4 and as good optically or even better than the 12-24, then it'll be a great lens. It'll just be quite pricey and I have to wait ...

[MikeW]

In a nutshell: Confirmation Bias

Absolutely!

[Fcsnt54]

When i was switching into the digital world, i asked around on what people thought. Some people said don't go with pentax you will regret it, in return they couldnt answer a simple question of "why?". Others have stated the lens selection, af is terrible, pentax takes horrible pictures, pentax has washed out photos, pentax cameras take blurry photos, and my favorite pros shoot with canon so go that direction. Yet, when i asked why or how pentax cameras took horrible blurry washed out pictures, they could never give me examples that werent user error. Yup, glad i did my research because to the most part im happy with what i bought.

[TER-OR]

they could never give me examples that werent user error.

It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.