[sholtzma]

I have only the 28-70, but I will make all the necessary sacrifices to make and post the comparison if someone will loan me their 24-70. ;-)

[pathdoc]

Fight!

Two lenses enter; one lens leaves!

I would not mind a significant quality upgrade on the dreary FA 28-90 f/3.5-5.6 as a budget wide to short tele zoom. If they boosted the build quality and MF handling even to the standard of the DA50/1.8, I would be happy with it. Until then, I will soldier on with what I've got; it gives good family happy-snaps in daytime conditions and weighs next to nothing on the K-5, which is basically the reason I bought it. If not for the horrifically sloppy manual focus, it'd be the perfect match for my ME and P3.

[FantasticMrFox]

Well, in my opinion there's a clear price gap between (just to name some examples) DA* (16-50, 50-135, 60-250) and the new DFA lenses (whereas only one of them, DFA 70-200 is marked as * by Pentax).

Pentax DA* 16-50 f/2.8 at B&H $1,046. Canon 17-55 f/2.8 $829.
Pentax D-FA* 70-200 f/2.8 pre-order $2,296.95. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II IS USM $1,999. So street price wise probably similar some time after the Pentax launch.
Pentax HD DA 16-85 WR $549. Canon 17-85 $299.

I don't see the Pentax price advantage.

Now when I see price tags like USD 1500 (well, at least here in Europe) for 24-70 ...

The D FA 24-70 f/2.8 is essentially a Tamron 24-70 in a different housing. Pentax have added their coatings and weather sealing and the lens still costs exactly as much as the Tamron (at least in the US).h

[acoufap]

The D FA 24-70 f/2.8 is essentially a Tamron 24-70 in a different housing. Pentax have added their coatings and weather sealing and the lens still costs exactly as much as the Tamron (at least in the US).h

Prices of today for the Tamron at Amazon.de:
789,- € / Canon Version, 829,- € Nikon Version, 754,90 € Sony Version.

Pentax announcement: 1.299,- €. Until now not available at Amazon.

[Rondec]

US prices are pretty close between brands. That said, people tend to compare brand new prices to ancient lens prices.

Amazon pricing here: Nikon 16-85 is 696.95; Pentax 16-85 is 527.65; Canon doesn't have a 16-85, but they do have a 15-85 which is 799. Much depends on which lenses you choose to compare. If you compare really old lens designs, particularly against very recent Pentax releases, you will find that the prices don't match up very well.

I purchased the 24-70 for 1300 dollars and was very pleased with that pricing, but if you don't like it and think that Canon or Nikon has better deals, then maybe it is time to switch.

[zzeitg]

I purchased the 24-70 for 1300 dollars and was very pleased with that pricing, but if you don't like it and think that Canon or Nikon has better deals, then maybe it is time to switch.

Well, could be that the FF camera won't be anything for me after all. Or more likely I'll get the FF camera, but forbear the new FF lenses.


I'm pretty happy with my DA*16-50 (f2.8) which I bought for something like 890 EUR. Can't find many reasons why should I spent 1370 EUR for 24-70 (f2.8). Ok, it's a FF lens. Does it justify price difference of EUR 480 ?? Frankly I don't know.

(what would be the price of 24-70 if Pentax would release it as * lens...?)

[northcoastgreg]

(what would be the price of 24-70 if Pentax would release it as * lens...?)

It would go for the MSRP of the newest Canikon 24-70 f2.8 lenses: ~$1,900.

[FantasticMrFox]

It would go for the MSRP of the newest Canikon 24-70 f2.8 lenses: ~$1,900.

The Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II USM was released for an MSRP of $2,300

[Rondec]

Well, could be that the FF camera won't be anything for me after all. Or more likely I'll get the FF camera, but forbear the new FF lenses.


I'm pretty happy with my DA*16-50 (f2.8) which I bought for something like 890 EUR. Can't find many reasons why should I spent 1370 EUR for 24-70 (f2.8). Ok, it's a FF lens. Does it justify price difference of EUR 480 ?? Frankly I don't know.

(what would be the price of 24-70 if Pentax would release it as * lens...?)

The 24 -70 is a lot bigger lens than the 16-50. It isn't surprising that it is more expensive. It also is quite a bit more flare resistant than a 16-50. And on full frame it is a stop faster than the 16-50 (if that is important).

But we are getting far afield. The question is a comparison question and I am afraid I can't help there.

[iht]

Yes, would appreciate if an owner of both lenses to chime in.

If others want to discuss Pentax pricing further, do feel free to start your own thread.

[Adam]

I have both lenses at the moment...will post some samples in the coming days.

[iht]

I knew you would, Adam Thanks!

[ddamski]

You can get 28-80 for something like 650 USD - and it's FF, too. Of course it's not the state-of-the-art of the today's lenses, but still "powerful". But once more - what surprises me the most (considering its price tag) is the fact that 24-70 is NOT (whyever...) *-lens.

well its not a * lens because it is a rebadged tamron. A good move which saved ricoh some time. And the 24-70 is a state of the art lens.. in todays standards. Just because it doesnt have a star it should not bother us when it has pretty good performance
Probably you mean the 28-70.. i cant find any 28-80 that would cost 650 usd.. :-)

[iht]

well its not a * lens because it is a rebadged tamron. A good move which saved ricoh some time. And the 24-70 is a state of the art lens.. in todays standards. Just because it doesnt have a star it should not bother us when it has pretty good performance
Probably you mean the 28-70.. i cant find any 28-80 that would cost 650 usd.. :-)

OP here: as mentioned, do feel free to continue discussion on Pentax pricing on a separate thread, thanks. Just wanted to keep this thread for actual lens comparison, if that's okay

[max_pyne]

thanks adam!