Bob Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: >On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Bryan Jacoby <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Mark Roberts >> <[email protected]> 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". -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
