On 4/3/2012 11:35 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Bob Sullivan<rf.sulli...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Bryan Jacoby<bryan.jac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Mark Roberts
<postmas...@robertstech.com> wrote:
The Penatx 16-50, for example, is now priced in the same ballpark as
its Canon and Nikon equivalents.
Right. So the question is: is that a good idea, given Pentax's
position in the market?
Probably a good idea given their cost structure...
Could be. But I note that the Nikon 17-55/2.8 at $1424.00 (B&H) isn't
weather sealed; the Canon 16-35/2.8 at 1699.00 *is* weather sealed but
costs almost $200 more than the Pentax and only goes to 35mm at the
long end.
At a certain point, Pentax has to price their lenses comparably to the
competition because a lot of people will assume that cheaper means
inferior and expensive = "better".
It's a good thing I love the old manual primes so much!
Though, I can't help but wonder how much pressure this will put on the
vintage glass market.
-- Walt
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
