Anyone Else Worried About Lack of Pentax Version of New Tamron Lenses?

CFWhitman · 09-06-2011, 07:07 AM

Does anyone else find it disturbing that new Tamron lenses don't seem to exist in Pentax mount versions? Sure, the lenses that have been around a while are still available for Pentax, but new designs don't seem to include Pentax versions at all. I hope that this changes. I'd hate to see another lens choice for the cameras disappear.

Ron Kruger · 09-06-2011, 07:12 AM

One of the biggest reasons I switched from decades of Nikons to Pentax was for quality glass at reasonable prices. Doesn't bother me at all if Tamron, Sears, etc. don't fit.
It does bother me a little (but not much) that Zeiss is no longer issuing lenses with Pentax mounts.

RioRico · 09-06-2011, 07:25 AM

If Ricoh pushes Pentax market share up, expect to see more PK-mount 3rd-party lenses.

Edgar_in_Indy · 09-06-2011, 07:27 AM

Since Sigma and Tamron seem to be the two main companies making "quality glass at reasonable prices" these days, I definately find it concerning that Pentax isn't getting as much support these days from these two lens makers. I wonder what the reasons are.

JinDesu · 09-06-2011, 07:38 AM

I like Tamron lenses, as they form the border of affordable and good optics. I do wish they brought out the 180 macro, 200-500, and the 18-270 in k-mount.

creampuff · 09-06-2011, 07:39 AM

The build quality of Tamron lenses isn't something to shout about. So it is no loss imo.

Frogfish · 09-06-2011, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Ron Kruger

One of the biggest reasons I switched from decades of Nikons to Pentax was for quality glass at reasonable prices. Doesn't bother me at all if Tamron, Sears, etc. don't fit.
It does bother me a little (but not much) that Zeiss is no longer issuing lenses with Pentax mounts.

Though it's a simple and painless (except to your pocket, another $30-50) process to convert them to PK and since they are MF anyway you are not losing anything. I've had two converted so far.

Frogfish · 09-06-2011, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

The build quality of Tamron lenses isn't something to shout about. So it is no loss imo.

But they still make some great lenses, the 90/2.8 Di Macro, 17-50/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 jump out as wonderful lenses that I have (or have tried) and the 28-75/2.8 has a brilliant reputation too.

JinDesu · 09-06-2011, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

The build quality of Tamron lenses isn't something to shout about. So it is no loss imo.

I'd gladly give up build quality for a third of the price of a Nikkor 70-200 2.8 or Canon 70-200 2.8 V. II to have the same optics quality.

kenafein · 09-06-2011, 08:08 AM

Tamrons might not be built like a DA* but I think they are just fine for the money. I don't have the feeling that they are going to fall apart. Losing choices always sucks. Competition keeps prices down. It maybe Sony is pressuring tamron to leave out pentax mounts in hope that they can take some of their market share, they are a large stockholder in tamron, but if Sony really wanted to kill pentax they could just stop selling them sensors. (assuming that they remain top of the sensor heap themselves) Or maybe hoya just wanted too much for licensing. Maybe ricoh can work a deal. With the current sigma-nikon lawsuit, sigma might be raising prices soon. That would be a double slap in the face.

Edgar_in_Indy · 09-06-2011, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

The build quality of Tamron lenses isn't something to shout about. So it is no loss imo.

Build quality is overrated IMO. I mean, really, how often have you had a lens fall apart? It's pointless to slam a lens for build quality when it costs a half or third of what the equivalent first-party lens costs.

And when it comes to build quality, it seems like the newer generations of 3rd party lenses have fine build quality. I'd gladly put my $750 Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 HSM II against anything under $2000 in terms of build quality.

**luftfluss** · 09-06-2011, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

The build quality of Tamron lenses isn't something to shout about. So it is no loss imo.

The same could be said for many Pentax lenses.

RioRico · 09-06-2011, 12:17 PM

I'll consider the build quality of the ~220 lenses I now have. [/me considers]

OK, some have metal (usually brass) bodies, some plastic, some are hybrids.
Not all plastics are created equal. Polycarbonates (Lexan) ain't polystyrene.
Not all metals are created equal. Brass isn't steel. Brass bends more easily.
Drop a brass-body lens from 1m. Oops. Drop a plastic lens. Hay, it bounces!

Much so-called "build quality" appeals to our sense of touch. Brass feels good!
How a lens feels when fondled, doesn't correlate with how it survives impact.
If it feels good, use it! But carefully. Don't drop it. Don't crush any chihuahuas.

creampuff · 09-06-2011, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Frogfish

But they still make some great lenses, the 90/2.8 Di Macro, 17-50/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 jump out as wonderful lenses that I have (or have tried) and the 28-75/2.8 has a brilliant reputation too.

Wow, so many Tamron users up in arms!

Seriously, while there are many fine Tamron lenses optically, the build quality is what holds me back from owning any one of them now, speaking as a user of a few Tamrons in the past. IMO, the 90mm macro is a decent lens, an update of a proven old design, but the AF/MF clutch is clumsy. The 17-50mm has the wobbly front problem, the 70-200mm sucks in too much dust over time and AF is sluggish and the 28-75mm is a 35mm carryover focal length that doesn't go wide enough on APS-C. While the lenses aren't gonna fall apart overnight, there's no escaping they were made to a particular price point. By the same token Pentax and other camera manufacturers also have uber cheap quality lenses too.

Frogfish · 09-06-2011, 11:52 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by creampuff

Wow, so many Tamron users up in arms!

Seriously, while there are many fine Tamron lenses optically, the build quality is what holds me back from owning any one of them now, speaking as a user of a few Tamrons in the past. IMO, the 90mm macro is a decent lens, an update of a proven old design, but the AF/MF clutch is clumsy. The 17-50mm has the wobbly front problem, the 70-200mm sucks in too much dust over time and AF is sluggish and the 28-75mm is a 35mm carryover focal length that doesn't go wide enough on APS-C. While the lenses aren't gonna fall apart overnight, there's no escaping they were made to a particular price point. By the same token Pentax and other camera manufacturers also have uber cheap quality lenses too.

Hmm whilst not wanting to appear a Tamron fanboy (as these are only lenses I use occasionally) I do think you are over-stating the issues somewhat.

90 is a macro lens so most often used in full MF .... but once you get used to the AF/MF clutch it's not an issue at all, it just becomes automatic (though can't deny it isn't the sweetest clutch implementation).

17-50 wobbly front end - just prise off the retaining rim, tighten the screws and replace rim. Done - two minutes. Not an issue.

70-200 - sucking dust. All zooms suck in dust over time. I have never heard of this lens being any worse than the Sigma or Pentax (60-250) in this regard. As for AF speed - it is plenty fast enough, just shaded by the similar Sigma's HSM (but the Tamron is sharper) but blows any Pentax zoom out of the water.

The 28-75 is considered a staple by many Wedding togs. If that, or similar situational events / family shots, is what you want the lens for then it is a very good choice. YMMV.

You're absolutely right Tamron make their lenses to appeal to those people who want excellent optics at the right price ... however the fact that many people still choose them over the competition purely on their optics and regardless of price says a lot about the company.

09-06-2011, 07:07 AM	#1
CFWhitman Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Upstate New York, US Photos: Albums Posts: 225	Anyone Else Worried About Lack of Pentax Version of New Tamron Lenses? Does anyone else find it disturbing that new Tamron lenses don't seem to exist in Pentax mount versions? Sure, the lenses that have been around a while are still available for Pentax, but new designs don't seem to include Pentax versions at all. I hope that this changes. I'd hate to see another lens choice for the cameras disappear.

09-06-2011, 09:12 AM	#11
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Originally posted by creampuff The build quality of Tamron lenses isn't something to shout about. So it is no loss imo. Build quality is overrated IMO. I mean, really, how often have you had a lens fall apart? It's pointless to slam a lens for build quality when it costs a half or third of what the equivalent first-party lens costs. And when it comes to build quality, it seems like the newer generations of 3rd party lenses have fine build quality. I'd gladly put my $750 Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 HSM II against anything under $2000 in terms of build quality. Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 09-06-2011 at 09:24 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Love B & H Photo Service - But I Worry About Their Lack of Protection for Lenses	gloaming	Ask B&H Photo!	17	03-23-2011 10:15 AM
Is it just me or is there a lack of affordable 2.8 zoom lenses?	spystyle	Photographic Technique	26	02-23-2011 08:10 PM
Lack of support for 645 FA lenses!!!	kolus	Pentax Medium Format	9	09-27-2010 07:04 PM
I have a Pentax k-x but am thinking of getting a k-7 but worried about ISO performanc	crossover37	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	09-10-2010 04:36 AM
Lack of AF on 18-250mm Tamron	glanglois	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	06-24-2009 01:51 PM

09-06-2011, 07:12 AM	#2
Ron Kruger Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 534	One of the biggest reasons I switched from decades of Nikons to Pentax was for quality glass at reasonable prices. Doesn't bother me at all if Tamron, Sears, etc. don't fit. It does bother me a little (but not much) that Zeiss is no longer issuing lenses with Pentax mounts.

09-06-2011, 07:25 AM	#3
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	If Ricoh pushes Pentax market share up, expect to see more PK-mount 3rd-party lenses.

09-06-2011, 07:27 AM	#4
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Since Sigma and Tamron seem to be the two main companies making "quality glass at reasonable prices" these days, I definately find it concerning that Pentax isn't getting as much support these days from these two lens makers. I wonder what the reasons are.

09-06-2011, 07:38 AM	#5
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	I like Tamron lenses, as they form the border of affordable and good optics. I do wish they brought out the 180 macro, 200-500, and the 18-270 in k-mount.

09-06-2011, 07:39 AM	#6
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	The build quality of Tamron lenses isn't something to shout about. So it is no loss imo.

09-06-2011, 07:45 AM	#7
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by Ron Kruger One of the biggest reasons I switched from decades of Nikons to Pentax was for quality glass at reasonable prices. Doesn't bother me at all if Tamron, Sears, etc. don't fit. It does bother me a little (but not much) that Zeiss is no longer issuing lenses with Pentax mounts. Though it's a simple and painless (except to your pocket, another $30-50) process to convert them to PK and since they are MF anyway you are not losing anything. I've had two converted so far.

09-06-2011, 07:46 AM	#8
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by creampuff The build quality of Tamron lenses isn't something to shout about. So it is no loss imo. But they still make some great lenses, the 90/2.8 Di Macro, 17-50/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 jump out as wonderful lenses that I have (or have tried) and the 28-75/2.8 has a brilliant reputation too.

09-06-2011, 07:50 AM	#9
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by creampuff The build quality of Tamron lenses isn't something to shout about. So it is no loss imo. I'd gladly give up build quality for a third of the price of a Nikkor 70-200 2.8 or Canon 70-200 2.8 V. II to have the same optics quality.

09-06-2011, 08:08 AM	#10
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	Tamrons might not be built like a DA* but I think they are just fine for the money. I don't have the feeling that they are going to fall apart. Losing choices always sucks. Competition keeps prices down. It maybe Sony is pressuring tamron to leave out pentax mounts in hope that they can take some of their market share, they are a large stockholder in tamron, but if Sony really wanted to kill pentax they could just stop selling them sensors. (assuming that they remain top of the sensor heap themselves) Or maybe hoya just wanted too much for licensing. Maybe ricoh can work a deal. With the current sigma-nikon lawsuit, sigma might be raising prices soon. That would be a double slap in the face.

09-06-2011, 10:25 AM	#12
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,628	Originally posted by creampuff The build quality of Tamron lenses isn't something to shout about. So it is no loss imo. The same could be said for many Pentax lenses.

09-06-2011, 12:17 PM	#13
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I'll consider the build quality of the ~220 lenses I now have. [/me considers] OK, some have metal (usually brass) bodies, some plastic, some are hybrids. Not all plastics are created equal. Polycarbonates (Lexan) ain't polystyrene. Not all metals are created equal. Brass isn't steel. Brass bends more easily. Drop a brass-body lens from 1m. Oops. Drop a plastic lens. Hay, it bounces! Much so-called "build quality" appeals to our sense of touch. Brass feels good! How a lens feels when fondled, doesn't correlate with how it survives impact. If it feels good, use it! But carefully. Don't drop it. Don't crush any chihuahuas.

09-06-2011, 06:29 PM	#14
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Originally posted by Frogfish But they still make some great lenses, the 90/2.8 Di Macro, 17-50/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 jump out as wonderful lenses that I have (or have tried) and the 28-75/2.8 has a brilliant reputation too. Wow, so many Tamron users up in arms! Seriously, while there are many fine Tamron lenses optically, the build quality is what holds me back from owning any one of them now, speaking as a user of a few Tamrons in the past. IMO, the 90mm macro is a decent lens, an update of a proven old design, but the AF/MF clutch is clumsy. The 17-50mm has the wobbly front problem, the 70-200mm sucks in too much dust over time and AF is sluggish and the 28-75mm is a 35mm carryover focal length that doesn't go wide enough on APS-C. While the lenses aren't gonna fall apart overnight, there's no escaping they were made to a particular price point. By the same token Pentax and other camera manufacturers also have uber cheap quality lenses too.

09-06-2011, 11:52 PM - 1 Like	#15
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by creampuff Wow, so many Tamron users up in arms! Seriously, while there are many fine Tamron lenses optically, the build quality is what holds me back from owning any one of them now, speaking as a user of a few Tamrons in the past. IMO, the 90mm macro is a decent lens, an update of a proven old design, but the AF/MF clutch is clumsy. The 17-50mm has the wobbly front problem, the 70-200mm sucks in too much dust over time and AF is sluggish and the 28-75mm is a 35mm carryover focal length that doesn't go wide enough on APS-C. While the lenses aren't gonna fall apart overnight, there's no escaping they were made to a particular price point. By the same token Pentax and other camera manufacturers also have uber cheap quality lenses too. Hmm whilst not wanting to appear a Tamron fanboy (as these are only lenses I use occasionally) I do think you are over-stating the issues somewhat. 90 is a macro lens so most often used in full MF .... but once you get used to the AF/MF clutch it's not an issue at all, it just becomes automatic (though can't deny it isn't the sweetest clutch implementation). 17-50 wobbly front end - just prise off the retaining rim, tighten the screws and replace rim. Done - two minutes. Not an issue. 70-200 - sucking dust. All zooms suck in dust over time. I have never heard of this lens being any worse than the Sigma or Pentax (60-250) in this regard. As for AF speed - it is plenty fast enough, just shaded by the similar Sigma's HSM (but the Tamron is sharper) but blows any Pentax zoom out of the water. The 28-75 is considered a staple by many Wedding togs. If that, or similar situational events / family shots, is what you want the lens for then it is a very good choice. YMMV. You're absolutely right Tamron make their lenses to appeal to those people who want excellent optics at the right price ... however the fact that many people still choose them over the competition purely on their optics and regardless of price says a lot about the company.