On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Miserere <miser...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Christine was complaining that the DA* 16-50mm was too expensive for > her when it cost $800, which is a bargain when you consider what > Canikonians pay for the standard f/2.8 zooms, and she's far from the > only one. The core Pentax userbase is a bunch of tight bastards who > spend money only at gun-point (I'm one of them) and I don't see them > (us) buying a $3,000 FF from Pentax.
Hang on -- how did I get to be the posterchild for Pentax Tightwads?! :) Just to clarify -- my doubts about that lens have more to do with its spotty reputation... deserved or not... and its unseemly zoom behavior. I happily spent at least as much on the 50-135, and know what a bargain it is, compared to the (FF) equivalents of the other brands. I won't detail the rest of my gear purchases, but believe me, I'm down with spending. But cheapskate or no, 800 bucks is 800 bucks. If I'm not convinced I want the product, I'm not going to spend it. As it is, each time I think about buying a new lens (or body), I go through the motions of convincing myself that Pentax & I are in it for the long haul. They're putting out lots of mixed signals, for sure. I would be very interested to know just who the core Pentax userbase really is, btw. Obviously, the samples here and at PF must be small in comparison to the general population... and I wonder how different the demographic is here in the US vs. Europe vs Japan, for ex? :) -c -- 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.
