Reply With QuoteI never said Canon and Nikon don't have fantastic non-telephotos. I said that their big advantage over Pentax was in their "super-expensive, professional lenses", *most notably* (but not limited to) their big, long telephotos -- because Pentax doesn't make anything longer than 300mm, and at 300mm they don't make anything as fast (or as expensive) as Canon's $4,400 f/2.8 lens. I would consider, for example, the 17mm tilt-shift lens you mentioned, which sells for $2,500, to be exactly the kind of lens that I would refer to as a very expensive, professional lens, which, if in one's budget, represents an area where Canon has an advantage over Pentax.Originally Posted by Dravalen
However, apart from very specific areas like tilt-shift lenses, extreme telephoto lenses (500mm, etc.) and the like, I believe that Pentax's lenses stack up very well with Canon and Nikon, even taking into consideration their pricey selections like the $2,000 85mm f/1.2 you mention. The Pentax Limited 77mm f/1.8, while a stop slower, is very highly regarded and costs about 1/3 of the Canon lens. While it's true that the rentability of Canon lenses that might be otherwise out of reach should be a factor if you shoot in a manner that renting lenses for a single day makes sense (I am decidedly not that type of photographer), you can't dismiss the price differences entirely by invoking rental prices. (For me, those Canon lenses rent for $40 (US) per day, by the way, so you've got a much more generous rental house than me.)
