Having done both, I can say a bit about them.
Access is useful for quick and dirty prototyping and experimentation. There's less work involved in setting up a simple database and connect up some forms, versus the .NET/SqlServer way. It's also acceptable, in my view, for very simple database applications, where you can be certain the system will be small and not heavily used. I've gone this route for a couple of little personal projects.
At the opposing end of the debate is a full database (e.g. Sql Server) accessed via a .NET application (web, winforms, wpf, etc). This takes more work to set up, but will be more robust and scalable.
There is some middle ground, which I've not done before: create an access application backed by a Sql Server database. You get the high-scale database with the relative simplicity of Access' forms and reports.
On another note, it is possible to take an existing Access database and upscale it to Sql Server without too much trouble. Again, not something I've done, but the option is there.
In the end, you should decide if the tradeoff in scalability is worth the quick start, or if the Access setup is all that you will need.
EDIT: another point, regarding languages. If you're heavily against using VB in any way or form, go the .NET route. In Access, you'll be coding in VBA, a relative to VB, but without the .NET framework.