[MarkJerling]

Spend more than 5 minutes to look at it, interesting what kind of BS is published online. Pentax does not even have a complete lens lineup. Add some cheap Samyang stuff and call it inexpensive. Why not look out for used lenses or film bodies to drop prices. Now I wasted even more time on this.
Comparing apples with water melons.

I think the comparison is fair. There's nothing wrong with those two Rokinon lenses. But, even if we scrap those two lenses from the lineup, Pentax still presents the best value. Which is the interesting point to take from the comparison.
Whenever one compares anything, unless you're dealing with identical products, it's "apples and water melons", or probably apples and oranges.

[normhead]

It's only BS when it doesn't agree with your point of view in many cases. Bias personified. The ultimate take away, you can go cheaper for the same IQ with Pentax. With all the legacy glass you can go even cheaper. My F 70-210 cost me $35. I can pick up an FA 20-35 and cover whatever I want. It may not be right for everyone, but it might be right for you.

[ThorSanchez]

I think the comparison is fair. There's nothing wrong with those two Rokinon lenses. But, even if we scrap those two lenses from the lineup, Pentax still presents the best value. Which is the interesting point to take from the comparison.
Whenever one compares anything, unless you're dealing with identical products, it's "apples and water melons", or probably apples and oranges.

Pentax is the best value. But they still should have given all the camera brands the benefit of third-party lenses and not just the one without a full kit of OEM glass. Make it as fair a fight as possible. Pentax still wins and it gives less of an opportunity to cry foul.

[Rondec]

Spend more than 5 minutes to look at it, interesting what kind of BS is published online. Pentax does not even have a complete lens lineup. Add some cheap Samyang stuff and call it inexpensive. Why not look out for used lenses or film bodies to drop prices. Now I wasted even more time on this.
Comparing apples with water melons.

There is another competing thread talking about this Peta Pixel post. I posted there that if you simply look at the cost of a K-1 II, DFA 15-30, DFA 24-70, and DFA 70-200 it will be 5784. If you purchase a D810, Nikon 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 VR it will cost you 9184. That's a difference of about 3500 dollars. Furthermore, the Nikon 14-24 isn't stabilized.

Obviously, you can substitute third party lenses or used lenses and bring the cost down, but the fact does remain that Pentax is a good value brand at this point. That doesn't mean it will work for everyone. There are plenty of reasons to purchase Canon, Nikon, or even Sony gear, but from a price standpoint, I think Pentax has been very realistic with their lens pricing compared to the rest of the market.

[normhead]

There is another competing thread talking about this Peta Pixel post. I posted there that if you simply look at the cost of a K-1 II, DFA 15-30, DFA 24-70, and DFA 70-200 it will be 5784. If you purchase a D810, Nikon 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 VR it will cost you 9184. That's a difference of about 3500 dollars. Furthermore, the Nikon 14-24 isn't stabilized.

Obviously, you can substitute third party lenses or used lenses and bring the cost down, but the fact does remain that Pentax is the best value brand at this point. That doesn't mean it will work for everyone. There are plenty of reasons to purchase Canon, Nikon, or even Sony gear, but from a price standpoint, I think Pentax has been very realistic with their lens pricing compared to the rest of the market.

And according to some of the literature I've read the Nikon 24-70 isn't as good as the Tamron. It' s funy, all the year everyone was all over Pentax for not having "modern glass". IN the case of the three base zoom 2.8 lenses, Pentax has modern glass, but you don't hear the 'Nikon and Canon don't have modern glass" refrain despite much of it getting on in the tooth at the moment.

The simple fact is, things have changed... and PetaPixel has reflected that in their article. Whether or not the article is accurate, it's as accurate as all the articles that ran for years criticizing Pentax with no objection from certain members of the Pentax forums. It turns out those who have nothing to say when Pentax is being trashed have objections when Pentax is being praised. Sad really.

And arguing Pentax isn't the "value" alternative, in many cases it's both the value alternative and the best alternative in terms of modern glass and the best three top pro 2.8 lenses. And it turns out the Pentax auto-focus myth is also not upheld by any scientific testing.

The anti-Pentax propagandists who have been getting away with this nonsense for years by shouting every opposing opinion down are finally being shown up for what they are. Hopefully, at this point they can realize their gig is up, at least on the forum.

Some of the facts turned up by research are simply hilarious.

Like that the D7200 when tracking, is predictive, but doesn't check the AF. No surprise there. Nikon focus confirm takes twice as much time as Pentax focus confirm. If they focus confirm as Pentax does they'll have the slowest tracking in the business. The Nikon "tracking AF" system is not a tracking AF system, it's a predictive system that just uses AF for the starting reference measurements. Once the science is in, we discover in tracking AF, every body is talking about something different with different performances.

So I have to ask. Given that this has always been true, why have so many people set up their test to show how bad Pentax is? Given the differences, they could have easily set up tests where Pentax had the advantage. Why did It take some crazy German guys with no horse in the race to do that.

The worst thing about this is, anyone who shoots Pentax should have known from their experience what load of crap was being peddled. They had their own experience, but they still drank the cool aid and promoted Canikon marketing nonsense.

There are a lot of traitors to the cause around here being called out at the moment. You know who you are.

[sutherland]

And according to some of the literature I've read the Nikon 24-70 isn't as good as the Tamron.

Accurate. Nikon's 24-70 is overpriced and is actually a lens that has regressed in its most recent and more expensive iteration. The 24-70 G lacked VR, but is noticeably sharper than the more expensive 24-70 E w/ VR.

The PetaPixel article appeared to follow a simple script and select the 'most expensive' lenses of select systems with the assumption that 'higher price + faster aperture = pro lens'. A good example of this is with the Nikon's system and the Nikon 50mm 1.4. It's an older, more expensive prime that is bested in almost all categories by Nikon's $220 50mm 1.8.

The article assumes that a Pro is going to buy the 'most expensive' / 'cookie cutter' kits.

[ThorSanchez]

And according to some of the literature I've read the Nikon 24-70 isn't as good as the Tamron. It' s funy, all the year everyone was all over Pentax for not having "modern glass". IN the case of the three base zoom 2.8 lenses, Pentax has modern glass, but you don't hear the 'Nikon and Canon don't have modern glass" refrain despite much of it getting on in the tooth at the moment.

The simple fact is, things have changed... and PetaPixel has reflected that in their article. Whether or not the article is accurate, it's as accurate as all the articles that ran for years criticizing Pentax with no objection from certain members of the Pentax forums. It turns out those who have nothing to say when Pentax is being trashed have objections when Pentax is being praised. Sad really.

And arguing Pentax isn't the "value" alternative, in many cases it's both the value alternative and the best alternative in terms of modern glass and the best three top pro 2.8 lenses. And it turns out the Pentax auto-focus myth is also not upheld by any scientific testing.

The anti-Pentax propagandists who have been getting away with this nonsense for years by shouting every opposing opinion down are finally being shown up for what they are. Hopefully, at this point they can realize their gig is up, at least on the forum.

Some of the facts turned up by research are simply hilarious.

Like that the D7200 when tracking, is predictive, but doesn't check the AF. No surprise there. Nikon focus confirm takes twice as much time as Pentax focus confirm. If they focus confirm as Pentax does they'll have the slowest tracking in the business. The Nikon "tracking AF" system is not a tracking AF system, it's a predictive system that just uses AF for the starting reference measurements. Once the science is in, we discover in tracking AF, every body is talking about something different with different performances.

So I have to ask. Given that this has always been true, why have so many people set up their test to show how bad Pentax is? Given the differences, they could have easily set up tests where Pentax had the advantage. Why did It take some crazy German guys with no horse in the race to do that.

The worst thing about this is, anyone who shoots Pentax should have known from their experience what load of crap was being peddled. They had their own experience, but they still drank the cool aid and promoted Canikon marketing nonsense.

There are a lot of traitors to the cause around here being called out at the moment. You know who you are.

I thought we were just having a friendly conversation about cameras. When I bought that first K-30 I didn't know I'd signed up for a revolution.

Attached Images

 

[northcoastgreg]

A bigger problem with the article in question is that it gives the kit that professionals allegedly aspire to a relevance it doesn't deserve. Pros have had way too much influence on the buying decisions of amateurs, even though the majority of amateurs aren't doing the kind of photography (i.e., mainly even photography) pros are doing. In the local camera club where I live, out of a membership of over 50 photographers, we have only two photographers who own wide angle or standard f2.8 zooms, and four photographers who own 70-200 f2.8 lenses. Only one photographer (the sole professional in the group) owns a 1.4 prime, and he never uses it. Most of the photographers in the club are shooting slower aperture zooms. The dozen or so with FF cameras are shooting with primarily shooting with f4 zooms. Most of the APS-C photographers are shooting with slow variable aperture zooms. A few photographers own macro primes or a 50 f1.8. One person owns some Leica primes which he shoots on a Sony mirrorless FF body. These so-called "pro" kits, I suspect, are mostly used by pro wannabees and lazy photographers suffering from tripodphobia. If you're not doing some variant of portrait photography (including sports), these pro kits won't necessarily make a whole lot of sense.

[beholder3]

the fact does remain that Pentax is a good value brand at this point

For every Pentax user there are 50+ other users out there - just by market share logic. If the ratio of internet trolls/haters is 10% that means you are likely to run into at least 5 idiots whenever you dare mention something positive about Pentax and then those 5 immediately get defensive and paranoid. That is what happened there.

The worst crowd are the ex-Pentax-user leftovers with a mission to teach their "all knowing truth".

[eddie1960]

Yes, but just trying to make sure it's apples-to-apples. I think if someone was going to use this as guidance they would have to consider whether 3rd party, manual focus lenses met their requirements.

What I'd like to see is a comparison of Fuji vs Pentax prices in APS-C. Probably not that hard...

Fuji prices from article, Pentax from MSRP via Google:

16mm f/1.4 WR - $999. Pentax 15mm f/4 $440, Irix 15mm f/2.4 $400.
35mm f/1.4 - $599. Pentax 35mm f/2.8 - $496
56mm f/1.2 - $999. Pentax 55 f/1.4 - $647
80mm f/2.8 - $1199. Pentax 77 f/1.8 - $896
90mm f/2.0 - $949. Pentax 100mm f/2.8 WR - $496
8-16mm f/2.8 WR - $1999. Pentax 11-18mm f/2.8 - $1400
16-55mm f/2.8 - $1199. Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8 - $1047
50-140 f/2.8 - $1599. Pentax 50-135 f/2.8 - $1047
100-400 4.5-5.6 - $1899. Pentax uhh... 60-250 f/2.8? - $1297. Or the 150-450 at $1997.

Fuji XT-3 body $1499. KP is only current Pentax APS-C you could describe as pro-ish, and it's $800.

The hard part was that in some cases there is no direct equivalent. Pentax has no APS-C 35mm 1.4. Or 100-400. Or 15ish 1.4. But most of the Pentax lenses are cheaper, if also older designs with screwdrive autofocus, or SDM designs.

---------- Post added 03-08-19 at 03:26 PM ----------



Few people. But I think you'd get similar results with your own chosen subset of equipment.

well except those are poor matches,
16mm f2.8 399 vs pentax 15 f4 @ 440
there is no 23 Pentax...Fuji has 2
35 f2 WR @ 399 vs 35 f2.8 @ 496
the 56vs55 I will give but the 56 is faster and doesn't have sdm issues
the 77 vs 80 is apples and oranges, the 80 is a 1:1 macro with OIS built in and is WR ...I love the 77 but different kettle of fish there...the 100mm 2.8 is a closer comparison minus the OIS and build (16 elements in 12 groups on the fuji it is a beast)
the 90F2.0 is also a beast WR 11 elements in 8 groups ... also a different kettle of fish than the 77. I love the 77 though (and wish there was a fuji like it for size in that category the 90 weighs a ton so does the 56 (I have both) i love the 50 f2wr i wish there was a 75 version

pentax vs fuji is a fair comparison, both systems have their good and bad. I think the Fuji Ecosystem is closer to a pro apsc ecosystem though. Pentax is lacking the really fast glass for the most part .

in any case, what is pro is the gear a pro uses doesn't matter what it is if it achieves their goals as an artist or professional then it is pro equipment. a dentist shooting a Leica is still using enthusiast gear to shoot brick walls (no slur on dentists --- well except for mine...horrible photographer w a Leica...

[MarkJerling]

I thought we were just having a friendly conversation about cameras. When I bought that first K-30 I didn't know I'd signed up for a revolution.

Actually, that would make a perfect image for Norm's signature!

Want me to fix it for you Norm?

[sutherland]

there is no 23 Pentax...Fuji has 2

Fuji has two 23s, however since Fuji only produces APS-C in the X-Mount, they are both 34.5mm.

Pentax has the DA15 which is 22.5mm on an APS-C body.

[eddie1960]

the discussion was comparing apsc pentax to fuji. from the post before me.

[Rondec]

well except those are poor matches,
16mm f2.8 399 vs pentax 15 f4 @ 440
there is no 23 Pentax...Fuji has 2
35 f2 WR @ 399 vs 35 f2.8 @ 496
the 56vs55 I will give but the 56 is faster and doesn't have sdm issues
the 77 vs 80 is apples and oranges, the 80 is a 1:1 macro with OIS built in and is WR ...I love the 77 but different kettle of fish there...the 100mm 2.8 is a closer comparison minus the OIS and build (16 elements in 12 groups on the fuji it is a beast)
the 90F2.0 is also a beast WR 11 elements in 8 groups ... also a different kettle of fish than the 77. I love the 77 though (and wish there was a fuji like it for size in that category the 90 weighs a ton so does the 56 (I have both) i love the 50 f2wr i wish there was a 75 version

pentax vs fuji is a fair comparison, both systems have their good and bad. I think the Fuji Ecosystem is closer to a pro apsc ecosystem though. Pentax is lacking the really fast glass for the most part .

in any case, what is pro is the gear a pro uses doesn't matter what it is if it achieves their goals as an artist or professional then it is pro equipment. a dentist shooting a Leica is still using enthusiast gear to shoot brick walls (no slur on dentists --- well except for mine...horrible photographer w a Leica...

Pentax does have a 21 mm limited prime. It may not be 23, but I think it's probably close enough that you could crop a couple of mm off of you image to give something similar.

As far as fast glass goes, I think Pentax has a decent amount, it just happens to be centered on full frame lenses. FA 31, FA 43, DA *55, DFA *50, and FA 77 all give pretty fast apertures on full frame -- comparable to the fastest lenses on Fuji and in general, quite good performance.

[eddie1960]

oh i know the lineup well. i was reallt pointing.out the error in comparisons. like the 1.4 35 vs a 2.8 35...of course the 2.8 is less costly...
both systems have positives. and negatives. right now on the apsc comparison pentax needs a new top cam.
but we all know that
fuji is expensive and still is missing a couple of fl ...like a 135 f2 ... and they do not come in lighter on a top model setup . the top lenses are all quite heavy. really good but heavy.