[FantasticMrFox]

Let's make a list:

None of them are helpful if I want an UWA zoom with good image quality that has a f/2.8 aperture and takes filters. Canon and Nikon have access to the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Pentax does not.

[normhead]

I am saying some Pentax lenses on the list have the advantage of weather sealing while Canon lenses have the advantage of STM, which is silent and quicker than screw-drive.



Who says it's best in class? On Photozone the optical results are roughly comparable to the Pentax, on ePhotozine the Canon beats the Pentax. I think the Pentax is a great lens, that's why I bought it, but the Canon is very highly regarded, especially for its price, so the comparison is absolutely valid. The Pentax 50-200 cannot measure up to the Canon.



I didn't cherry pick, I tried to find lenses that are comparable across the two brands and compared prices from the same source, Amazon Germany.



Possibly. When it comes to buying photographic equipment Europe is pretty much being screwed by manufacturers price wise. Maybe Ricoh just takes it a bit further than the other brands.

I have to say, the prices you posted are very unattractive. It's hard to comprehend why Pentax would do that to thier European distributers, if in fact it's Pentax that is doing it, and not retailers trying to pass Pentax off as a premium brand.

[MadMathMind]

There's one lens each in Canon and Nikon that is really attractive and Pentax doesn't offer something quite comparable:

Canon 85mm f/1.8 - $369
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 - $199

You can argue the DA35 is close to the Nikon but 5/6s of a stop faster for just a bit more money is really attractive. Then when you consider you have to go the FA31--a better lens, no doubt--to get the speed in Pentax, it makes the Nikon look really good. The Canon 85mm....well, the only competitor is the FA77 at a lot more money. Again, a better lens, but the FA77 has been over $700 for most of the time. Having affordable lenses at these two key focal lengths is somewhere Pentax could improve upon.

[pathdoc]

Having affordable lenses at these two key focal lengths is somewhere Pentax could improve upon.

If it gives us more Plastic Fantastics in the style of the DA35/2.4 and DA50/1.8, I would be all in favour of it.

To be blunt, I would be quite happy, glass chemistry permitting, to see Takumar optics shoved into a DA50-type shell if necessary. Some of those lenses were VERY good, and would not disgrace the best efforts of many amateur or enthusiast photographers. And of course the optics are already full-frame, which can only be a good thing, n'est-ce pas?

[FantasticMrFox]

If it gives us more Plastic Fantastics in the style of the DA35/2.4 and DA50/1.8, I would be all in favour of it.

Same here! If they added a 24 mm, that'd be great. Maybe add DC and WR like they did with the 18-50 kit.

[biz-engineer]

just to refocus the debate , I was thinking about technical arguments, opinions in relation to the images, tests, experiments from nikon/canonists... talking with the owners of other brands, you perhaps have heard the reasons why they didn't like pentax : because colorimetry didn't enjoy them, or AF seems lazy, or pentax DR is not amazing ? .... Personally, for example, I do not like some colors and tones on Nikon DSLR, and Canon DR is not very good IMO.... and at the same time, Nikon and Canon have some amazing lenses I can't find at pentax... ...just some honest informations heard from other DSLR owners, without unnecessary war

What lenses do you need and why do you need them?

[WPRESTO]

I hope both Sigma and Tamron pay more attention to Pentax-K.

[slip]

I would like this Tamron - NEW SP 85 F/1.8 Di VC USD
And this as a walk around 24-105mm F4 DG (OS)* HSM | A | Sigma Corporation of America
But we can't

[biz-engineer]

I would like this Tamron - NEW SP 85 F/1.8 Di VC USD And this as a walk around 24-105mm F4 DG (OS)* HSM | A | Sigma Corporation of America But we can't

You'll have equivalent in k mount.

[reh321]

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.

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

I can speak only for myself. I used Pentax 1979-95, partly because when I was a student in the 1960s, Pentax was the name I knew for having high-quality, but affordable, SLR camera systems. When I was ready to move to AF, I was highly impressed by the Canon USM lenses, and my reaction to the Pentax screw-drive system was equal but negative, so I moved over to Canon. When digital came along, I stuck with the brand I was now most familiar with, but when their bodies let me down, and I wanted something more robust, I came back to Pentax last summer {once I realized from visiting here that they were still making cameras}. My K-30 was kitted with an 18-55mm screw-drive WR lens, but almost immediately I purchased the 18-135mm DC WR lens {and I'm not sure where the original lens is now}. I have Sigma 10-20mm and 70-300mm screw-drive lenses only because I couldn't find any comparable DC lenses.

[WPRESTO]

Let's make a list:
- DA 14mm f2.8
- DA 15mm f4
- DA 10-17mm f3.5 - f4.5 fish-eye
- DA 12-24mm f4
- D FA 15-30 f2.8 (OK, this one is on the way)

On the other hand, for Nikon you have all the listed Sigma and Samyang, plus a few other SIgmas and several Tamrons and some high quality Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses.
For wide angle SFL only (no zooms) and Nikon-made only you have:

14mm f2.8
16mm f2.8 fish-eye
20mm f1,8
20mm f2,8
24mm f1.4
24mm f1.8
24mm f2.8
24mm f3.5 tilt-shift
28mm f1.8
28mm f2.8
35mm f1.4
35mm f1,8
35mm f2

All FF capable and all except the tilt-shift are AF
There are five additional WA zooms made by Nikon = 18 WA total, not counting zooms that extend from WA to normal and/or into telephoto.

Overall, for all manufacturers, SFL and zoom, B&H lists 70 wide-angles for Nikon, and even granting some of these are the same lens in slightly different mount ("D" verses "G" for example), there are far more offerings in Nikon mount than Pentax mount. And if you go back and count discontinued AF and MF lenses ......... Pentax does not and has never competed in terms of the diversity of lenses available from the manufacturer or from all manufacturers, except perhaps in the screw-mount days, but all of the latter can also be mounted on a Nikon.

[biz-engineer]

14mm f2.8 16mm f2.8 fish-eye 20mm f1,8 20mm f2,8 24mm f1.4 24mm f1.8 24mm f2.8 24mm f3.5 tilt-shift 28mm f1.8 28mm f2.8 35mm f1.4 35mm f1,8 35mm f2

Except for guys who have a LBA, no one need four different 24mm lenses, it's a waste of money, but good lenses to cover most common focal lengths would be enough.

[WPRESTO]

Yes but, the attraction of multiple lenses draws many buyers - those who do concert natural light and want f1.4, those who do general photography and need only f2.8 if that, and those who do landscapes and want tilt-shift. BUT, I will reassert it is the reputation Nikon established no later than the early 1960's that is critical. It's like trying to undo the reputation of Cadillac or Mercedes, even though other brands have have just as much luxury and far better repair records, or trying to convince some that a California wine is as good as or better than a French wine, or that's it's just as good to dine off of Corelle dinnerware as Limoge China. Nikon has for decades been THE PROFESSIONAL'S CAMERA, a reputation well-earned by both camera bodies and lenses and at this point, a reputation and market extraordinarily difficult to penetrate.

[FantasticMrFox]

Except for guys who have a LBA, no one need four different 24mm lenses, it's a waste of money, but good lenses to cover most common focal lengths would be enough.

Of course no single person needs four different 24 mm lenses, however different people have the choice of picking different lenses based on their needs and budget. Pentax has a bunch of 35 types - the DA 35 f/2.4 for the budget conscious, the FA 35 f/2 and DA 35 f/2.8 Ltd. Macro for those who are after something better, the FA 31 f/1.8 Ltd. for those who want a faster aperture and that very special rendering. And then there's the Sigma 35 f/1.4 'Art' for those who need the fastest aperture, maximum sharpness and overall the best optical performance, and the Sigma 30 f/1.4 'Art' for those who are a bit more budget conscious and so on.

No Pentax shooter has all of them (well, maybe there is someone with extreeeme LBA ), but isn't it nice to have the choice?

[Adam]

I read somewhere that they brought the MZ-D/original K-1 to the current K-1 launch and it is actually a working prototype, but they had no battery to fire it up. WTH? We want to see what we missed out on, if only so that we can breathe a sigh of relief!

Apparently the people who worked on the camera aren't with the company any more, some design info had been lost, and they didn't have any spares. I also believe it was an older type of battery (i.e. not a lithium battery). I'm sure if they tried hard enough they could put together a power supply, though I'm not sure we'd be positively surprised with the results (this camera is almost 4 years older than the *ist D after all)

I can't understand the lack of enthusiasm for Pentax DSLR... Do you know which are generally the reproaches made to the brand ? I heard that Pentax had a propensity to reach quickly the highlights burned, or that the lenses were not very effective or numerous ... What do you heard on your side, from no-pro photographers ?

The current state of the brand is a combination of Pentax's decline during the AF film era, a slow start in digital, and the lack of clear brand image until very recently. There's no question that the mishap caused by Hoya also slowed things down, but despite a shrinking DSLR market, it sounds like things are back on track under Ricoh. Accepting to be a niche brand with a narrow but clearly-defined audience is the way to go given Pentax's market share, rather than trying to be a head-on competitor to Canon or Nikon.