Somebody asked if Pentax glass was still competitive these days. William Robb said "it's still about the lenses. Do you really want to use Nikon or Canon glass?"
Now I haven't used any of Pentax's top-of-the-line glass more recent than the A series (no F, FA, FAltd) and I haven't used a lot of Nikon amateur glass or any Canon glass. I am also a photojournalist and tend to rate AF speed, sharpness, and large apertures ahead of bokeh, color rendition, portability, or affordability. BUT... I'd say the more accurate question is "do you want to pay for and carry Nikon or Canon glass?" Nikon and Canon are slugging it out for the pro market, at least for photojournalists and action photographers. Nobody else is really able or willing to compete with them. The result of this is an arms race producing very good, very big, very heavy, very expensive lenses tailored to action photographers--things like the 17-35/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8, with vibration reduction, low-dispersion glass, and internal motors. These lenses are better optically than any lens I have used or tested, Pentax or Nikon, with only occasional exceptions for superb old designs. The added fancy-dancies also give me more sharp,focused pictures under action conditions than I ever got with older MF Nikon or Pentax lenses. I have no first hand experience with Canon, but their lenses are consistently rated very highly and former Nikon guys I know who now shoot Canon say that with the exception of some glaring oopses the Canon glass is comparable to their old Nikon glass. It is possible that Pentax (or Minolta, or Sigma, or whatever) glass is as good or better but that the lack of an F3 or EOS-1 sort of camera keeps action photographers from looking at those brands, but I haven't seen anybody but N and C putting out lenses with the specs (aperture, motor, etc) that the two heavyweights do. (Minolta and Olympus seem to be trying, in their fashion). I suspect that at the top levels the N and C pro glass is better than most anything else except perhaps Leica and Contax, and perhaps not even them. Realistically, though, the top of the market has never been where Pentax was at its best. Conversely, Nikon and Canon have been outdoing eachother lately to put cheap cheesy junk out at the bottom of the market. Pentax made its name with Spotmatics, ME Supers, and IQzooms, not F1s and F3s. Given what I've seen of Nikon and Canon amateur lenses since the start of the AF era, I'm quite willing to believe that Pentax lenses are better made and better optically (although why can't I find any amateur 28-80 pentax lens that people will stand up and shout about?) than anybody elses. I've messed with some nasty all-plastic Nikon lenses, and I'm reading about cheap Nikon lenses using sticky tape structurally! Canon is no better here from what I'm told. If you are a photojournalist like me where getting the shot under nasty working conditions is the nature of the job, the answer to William Robb's question is "yes, I'd rather be shooting Nikon or Canon glass and cameras than anything else". However if you are a more normal sort of shooter who doesn't want to spend a fortune on lenses, can't afford to hire someone to carry your lenses for you, and wants lenses of good optical and mechanical quality then I'd say Pentax is probably a better bet than what Nikon and Canon have in that category. On vacation and when shooting for fun, I leave the Nikons at home. They are too big, too heavy, and too expensive to risk. Honestly some of the joy of the process of photography is lost with the killer pro stuff as well. My spotmatics are somehow more romantic, plus they give much better bang-per-dollar and bang-per-pound. And while the glass isn't as good as my best Nikkors, it's good enough. I just won a MNA award for a photo package that I happened to shoot on cheesy Fuji amateur print film with a pair of spotmatic SPIIs and a couple of SMC Takumar lenses. DJE
