[brothereye]

Okay, after all the Pentax financial position business, sky-falling nonsense, I have to confess, that I had decided not to invest anymore in Pentax and instead branch out and gradually switch to one of the two popular brands. I had managed to get about half of what I need saved towards a DA* 50-135, but figured well, I'll just take that money get started with a Nikon or a Canon. I always hear about how superior their gear is, and then I could gradually transition to the new system. Except when I started trying to pick something out, I'm convinced that the only thing superior about Canon or Nikon or the superiorly higher prices.

Tes of Pentax DA * 16-50 f2.8(about $700 US)

Test of Nikon 24-70 f2.8(about $1700 US)

What's important to note are the SQF tables. The Nikon fared only a little worse but it costs $1000 US more. How are Nikon lenses superior to Pentax?

[dave sz]

They have NIKON written on them?

[Canada_Rockies]

Not to mention that a 24-70 is easier to build optically than a 16-50. The wider you go the trickier the problems for the lens designer.

[rparmar]

I always hear about how superior their gear is

From whom?

Have you not heard that the FA43mm is one of the best lenses ever made? That there is nothing so portable and excellent as the FA77? That the FA* and A* 85mm are drop-dead gorgeous? That the FA31 is the normal to beat? That the FA35 is insanely sharp and the FA 50 f/2 even better? That the DA35 is the only walk-around normal that is also a macro? That the fast FA 50s are the best deals in optics? That the sealed zooms together form a perfect professional pair for any weather? That the DA* 200 and 300 are flawless?

And that doesn't even get in to the M, K, and Tak lines.

Nikon and Canon have some good glass, but nothing like Pentax for amazing primes at an affordable price (85mm excepted).

[little laker]

Just google up Super Takumar on a Canon, and you'll see that several Canon users use Pentax glass.
There must be a reason why

Okay, after all the Pentax financial position business, sky-falling nonsense, I have to confess, that I had decided not to invest anymore in Pentax and instead branch out and gradually switch to one of the two popular brands. I had managed to get about half of what I need saved towards a DA* 50-135, but figured well, I'll just take that money get started with a Nikon or a Canon. I always hear about how superior their gear is, and then I could gradually transition to the new system. Except when I started trying to pick something out, I'm convinced that the only thing superior about Canon or Nikon or the superiorly higher prices.

Tes of Pentax DA * 16-50 f2.8(about $700 US)

Test of Nikon 24-70 f2.8(about $1700 US)

What's important to note are the SQF tables. The Nikon fared only a little worse but it costs $1000 US more. How are Nikon lenses superior to Pentax?

Brothereye,

Your frustration is understandable but I am affraid if you think it thru there is little to no motives for concern. I'll try to explain a bit what I feel the real situation is:

Market situation

The world economy start to enter a reccession and this means mostly that people will think twice about investing in non essential goods such as cameras. It also seem that people will look harder at the offers both in terms of price (as low as possible) and in price/performance/features ratio. First signs are already here with Canon losing chunks of market share year after year and Nikon (on the higher end) and mostly Sony (on the lower end) are increasing theirs. The idea is that people will gradualy lose the herd mentality that only two companies exist on the market and search for the best offer with more open mindness.

Pentax state for the near future

Hoya's real intentions for Pentax will be shown around Photokina time. If we see a major investment at horizont in new cameras and lenses then we have a very good chance to progress if not ONLY THEN would be a good time for worries.
In a very short time Pentax will have for the first time in digital age 3 quite different models to battle from low end (but quality and features) to advanced amateur. Very likely a 4th model will be added soon. If you see all the sale numbers regardless of the country you'll easily see that Canon, Nikon and Sony sale an enormous number of their entry level models and Pentax will soon have one model to compete here. As for lenses people tend to forget (or have no idea what so ever) that Canon and Nikon have 80% or their lenses from predigital age (maybe with a digital coating). Also Sony makes what some people ask Pentax to do (and they are very wrong IMO) bringing a lot of old Minolta designs indiscriminately on the market with some new coatings and supersonic motors. And the results show in tests with mediocre performance: Sony 35mm f/1.4 G ( SAL-35F14G ) - Review / Test Report what about this for a 1300USD/Euro lens?? Pentax does the slower but wisest by far thing redesigning all the new lenses they bring on the market and in 1-2 years we will have a pretty complete set of very high quality lenses for the digital age with the price differential added to this high quality.
IMO Pentax has hit already rock bottom and next period will be a prosperous one. Just some people don't have the patience for that and noone must be judged for that.

My 2 eurocents,
Radu

[brothereye]

Well, I can find this same situation with other similar lenses.

This is the Pentax 55-300

This is the Canon 70-300 which is about $100 US more

Please note that here the Pentax lens tested considerably better in my opinion, and is still less expensive. At least the Nikon performed almost as well for the additional $1000 US.

I already knew Pentax made high-quality, super-value for the money equipment. I assumed that the Canon and Nikon folks were getting the same quality, they were just paying more for it. Now I'm not so sure that the quality is even the same, it looks like the price is just higher. The thing that steams me is that everything I read and hear basically says, "EVERYONE KNOWS" that it's a "FACT" that Canon or Nikon makes the "BEST" lenses and camera bodies. Who is everyone, and where did they get this universal knowledge?

And now I can go back to saving up the money to buy that PENTAX DA* 50-135. Oh, and a PENTAX K20D.

[deejjjaaaa]

Not to mention that a 24-70 is easier to build optically than a 16-50. The wider you go the trickier the problems for the lens designer.

24-70 is a FF lens... let us not forget that.

[brothereye]

From whom?

Have you not heard that the FA43mm is one of the best lenses ever made? That there is nothing so portable and excellent as the FA77? That the FA* and A* 85mm are drop-dead gorgeous? That the FA31 is the normal to beat? That the FA35 is insanely sharp and the FA 50 f/2 even better? That the DA35 is the only walk-around normal that is also a macro? That the fast FA 50s are the best deals in optics? That the sealed zooms together form a perfect professional pair for any weather? That the DA* 200 and 300 are flawless?

And that doesn't even get in to the M, K, and Tak lines.

Nikon and Canon have some good glass, but nothing like Pentax for amazing primes at an affordable price (85mm excepted).

Unfortunately, this is something the markets don't hear often enough. It's something I was aware of, having both DA and DA* as well as M, A and Takumar lenses.

And speaking of the DA* 200

BTW: I'm not actually a shill for PP. I do think they're lab tests are pretty good, but sometimes you have to read between the lines of the editorial content. DPR, otoh astonished me when I re-read the Pentax K10D review, which complained loudly of image softness and made this a strike against the K10D. I had just finished reading the Nikon D200 review, and the reviewer noted but then dismissed the high level of image softness as typical/normal for a camera at that level.

Whhhhhaattt? I thought softness was bad.

Seriously, if you want I can post links. It isn't hard to find though.

[rparmar]

I see I misread your tone in the initial post. You are playing the devil's advocate. My bad!

[brothereye]

24-70 is a FF lens... let us not forget that.

Agreed. It's also a $1000 more and isn't any "superior" optically, despite what the myths say. I don't really care anything about FF, I was just doing a bit of research into what I might be getting for my money, when I look at Canon or Nikon. (Apparently I get nothing except a lighter wallet.) The DA* is a "Premium" lens, and so is the Nikon. The Canon and the Pentax are both "Consumer" lenses. In both cases Pentax appears to be able to create as good or better optics for less money.

Ignore the FF issue:

This is a more equivalent model. It tests even more poorly versus the Pentax than the 24-70, but in this case only costs $500 US more than the optically better Pentax lens. Granted the Pentax lens is only a little better, for the $500 saved.

Here's the similar Canon which also doesn't turn in test numbers as good as the Pentax, although again the difference is marginal. And the Canon is only about $300 more than the marginally better Pentax.

BTW: This isn't to say that these Nikons and Canons aren't "good" lenses, it's just that they don't appear to be "superior", except for the price.

[brothereye]

I see I misread your tone in the initial post. You are playing the devil's advocate. My bad!

The RH devil had gotten to me. I had seriously started considering augmenting my Pentax gear and gradually transitioning to Canon or Nikon. I never doubted the quality of Pentax gear, although I'm still not entirely certain they're going to make it. I've just decided to not care, since neither I nor anyone else can predict the future. Back in the early '80s, no one would have predicted Canon would where they are now. Four years ago, Nikon was accused of "losing" the digital market. So, I'm sticking with Pentax gear, unless it starts getting trashy or until PENTAX or HOYA officially announce they're stopping operations, instead of listening to people who truly don't KNOW, and only vent a lot of meaningless air.

I regained my sanity before posting, but I had to rant a little bit.

[deejjjaaaa]

Agreed. It's also a $1000 more.

$1000 more than NEW FA* 28-70/2.8 AL ? /apples 2 apples, FF 2 FF, new 2 new/

[brothereye]

$1000 more than NEW FA* 28-70/2.8 AL ? /apples 2 apples, FF 2 FF, new 2 new/

Is that a new lens?

Still, compare the Pentax to the Nikon 17-55 and Canon 17-55. The Nikon and Canon are still hundreds more, and the Pentax still appears to be higher quality.

Canon 17-55

Nikon 17-55(DX format)

[Pentaxke]

Aren't you comparing apples to pears?

Not even the focal lenghts are the same...

And then, one of the reasons of the 24-70 Nikkor being so expensive is that it is regarded (together with the 14-24 f/2,8) as one of the best zoomlenses ever made. Even the Canon folks admit they don't have anything that comes near... As for the 16-50 Pentax, I think we won't argue if I say it's not anyway near one of the best zooms ever made by Pentax (there are a lot of them far superior.)

And while built quality of the 16-50 is very good, it's not anyway near the Nikkor.

So put one and one together...

That said: if I would compare the 16-50 with her Nikon cousin (the 17-55), I would say that the Pentax wins hands down. I used the Nikkor 17-55 on the S5, and all I can say is that it's rather soft (the Sigma 17-70 is optically better...)

Okay, after all the Pentax financial position business, sky-falling nonsense, I have to confess, that I had decided not to invest anymore in Pentax and instead branch out and gradually switch to one of the two popular brands. I had managed to get about half of what I need saved towards a DA* 50-135, but figured well, I'll just take that money get started with a Nikon or a Canon. I always hear about how superior their gear is, and then I could gradually transition to the new system. Except when I started trying to pick something out, I'm convinced that the only thing superior about Canon or Nikon or the superiorly higher prices.

Tes of Pentax DA * 16-50 f2.8(about $700 US)

Test of Nikon 24-70 f2.8(about $1700 US)

What's important to note are the SQF tables. The Nikon fared only a little worse but it costs $1000 US more. How are Nikon lenses superior to Pentax?