OK, admittedly, I've never used either. But the idea that the $300 Pentax f/2.0 35mm lens should be more accurately compared to the $1120 Canon F/1.4L 35mm lens is a little, well, not believable. Pentax does not have any equivalent high-end lenses to the Canon L series (at least not currently in production--except maybe the Tokina/Pentax 50-135 f/2.8), especially in the telephoto range. Pentax users tend to point to the FA series as L equivalent, but the reality is that they are at least 1 stop slower than the L lenses.
On the other hand, Canon doesn't make those neat little pancake lenses like Pentax's 21mm f/3.2, 40mm f/2.8, and 70mm f/2.4.
Also, it may be fine for many users that Pentax doesn't have any L level glass. None of my four lenses are L series. I don't know that I'll ever own one either. They are expensive, to be sure.
It's not just Pentaxians that consider FA glass to be on the level of L glass. It's a lot of reviewers and image testing houses. Pentax made a series of glass falled FA* (gotta have the asterisk) that really hasn't been matched for color accuracy, or quality. But lenses like the FA(no asterisk) 50 mm F/1.4 are often cited as being optically superior to any comparable primes on the market, even the 50 mm F/1.2 L from Canon, I own this lens and have almost no use for it under about F/2.4, I can't see any real value to having F1.2 when F/1.4 is almost unusable for 99% of situations because of it's very very very shallow depth of field. At F/1.4 depending on the distance between me and the subject, I've had the DOF as shallow as 1/4 inch.
I'm not saying all this as a dig on Canon, just saying that you have to dig a little deeper and have a little Pentax knowlege to understand why their glass is (almost) always comarably cheaper.
I had an interesting experience last night that kinda helped me understand why Canon is held in such an untouchable gold standard among many users. I was at Best Buy looking for Christmas gifts for my mom and I stopped in the camera section for a moment to check out the new Sony A-700. I was playing with it and my wife called out to me from a few yards away to see what I was doing, I told her I was checking the new Sony. Then a woman behind me tapped me on the shoulder and said "you don't want that piece of trash" I asked why, and she told me "my husband has used Canon for years". I responded by saying "really, well my wife and I have never been big Canon fans"; you'd think I'd punched her 97 year old mother in the teeth or something. She got all huffy with me, and said "well if you look at all these pictures you'll notice they were all taken with a Canon" (Best buy has photographs framed on the wall above where the DSLR's are displayed) "see Canon, Canon, Canon." just then, an assistant manager walked by and pointed out that Canon sends the pictures in so best buy can display them as advertisement. Apparently it works quite well, most people come in, see the photos, and decide that if they want to make a picture like that it requires a Canon. They play off the market's ignorance, I imagine it's much the same reason you see Canon's all over the photographer's pits at sporting events, I'll bet Canon has a large role to play in offering sports photographers their equipment for a very reasonable price, they become billboards for the brand. I don't have anything against Canon personally, I evaluated them initially and decided that for the price and for my needs, Pentax gave me way more bang for the buck. And I feel for what I pay, I get a far better quality of product. One only needs to handle a K10D and kit lens vs an XTi and it's kit lens side by side to see what I mean. K10D would be better compared to the 40D, but I got it at a price competitive to the XTi so that's why I make that comaprison. It's just that Pentax doesn't have a cut rate quality line of optics.
SLC