Why Are Pentax with Prime Selection Grabbing Some of Mirrorless Market?

Started Aug 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 14,474
Re: Cherry picking

Richard wrote:

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

Richard wrote:

I thought there were only two issues but I thought, hmm, lets see what it would cost to replace my lenses. What I found is that the comparable lens from Pentax were much more expensive than Canons and that Pentax does not have my favorite go to lens the 70-200 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8

And, as a long-time Pentax user I check prices from time to time and find that at current prices it would cost about 20% more to buy the lenses I own from either Canon or Nikon. This sort of argument often comes up - it's pretty easy to cherry pick a set of lenses to prove a point either way.5/

I have not found that to be true at all, perhaps post your lens line up and I will check that.

Priced today from what is probably the biggest cross-brand supplier in the UK: DA35/2.8Ltd macro (£379), FA50/1.4 (319), DA70/2.4Ltd (459), DFA100/2.8WR macro (499), DA*200/2.8 (749); total £2,405.

Of these all work well on FF except the 35/2.8. On my Pentax bodies they are all stabilised, so to compare Nikkor lenses I pick the nearest equivalent that has VR (if there is one). I know that some people claim that in-lens stabilisation is more effective than in-body, but I've asked several times for evidence and no one has ever provided any.

The nearest Nikkor equivalents - with about 3 out of 5 lacking VR - are 40/2.8 macro (255), 50/1.4 (289), 85/1.8 (379), 105/2.8 macro (629), 200/2.8 macro (1,239); total £2,791 (16% over Pentax prices for kit that lacks stabilisation on 60% of the items).

The only fair thing to say is that if you want a suite of lenses of specific style, FL, aperture etc you should check prices for those particular lenses. It depends on which lenses you want where you'll find the lowest price.

It did not cover my Nikon14-24 2.8 either nor a fisheye (there may be some 3rd party alternatives).

Every maker has some unique lenses. There are FLs in the Pentax line-up that no other maker offers: that partly explains what I said above. Pentax has a 10-17FE lens

Pentax does not have this 14-24 Nikon lens at all This is a full frame lens, the Nikon is not a fisheye. As far as fisheye. Nikon has the 10.5 2.8 and the 15 2.8 Canon has the 16 2.8 and the 8-15 F4.

Try reading what I wrote again: you said Pentax doesn't have fisheye (FE); I said it did. I said nothing about the rectilinear zoom (although Pentax does have a 12024 zoom).

But as I said, I could not replace my lenses with comparable lenses for a number of focal lengths that are missing on the Pentax side, the biggest being FF lenses.

And as I said, nor could I the other way round.  That was the whole point of my first post - it's meaningless to compare generically; everyone should price their own chosen set.

Again, show me your lens list. One thing though, when I was looking, I found the Pentax equivalents were priced similar or much higher for lenses that were not FF. Again this is an issue at least for me.

First, I'm not sure you understand the basic fact that past about 50mm all primes are effectively FF, although it is different for zooms.  Without knowing the specific comparisons you have made I don't know if you compared fully weather-sealed Pentax lenses with non-sealed lenses; but if you did, there's a likely explanation for price differentials.

When talking of FF "upgrade" it's important to be clear what it means.  People who start with entry-level DSLRs usually start with entry-level lenses that won't cover FF.  So for them "upgrade" means "start again"; in other words, they are no better placed than people who buy into Pentax.

The typical FLs made for film (= FF) cameras developed to suit 135 (FF).  Some of those FLs convert happily to APS-C, some don't.  Buying one set of FLs just in case you later change format might work or it might not; but it's misleading to give the impression that it will always work.  And there's the down side too: my 200/2.8 has AOV/FOV equivalence with 300/4 on FF, but it costs £749 v 929 (Pentax) or 1.029 (Nikkor) - and while Pentax doesn't offer equal speed the Nikkor 300/2.8 costs £4,045.

-- hide signature --

First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow