Pentax/Camera Marketplace |
Pentax Items for Sale |
Wanted Pentax Items |
Pentax Deals |
Deal Finder & Price Alerts |
Price Watch Forum |
My Marketplace Activity |
List a New Item |
Get seller access! |
Pentax Stores |
Pentax Retailer Map |
Pentax Photos |
Sample Photo Search |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Today's Photos |
Free Photo Storage |
Member Photo Albums |
User Photo Gallery |
Exclusive Gallery |
Photo Community |
Photo Sharing Forum |
Critique Forum |
Official Photo Contests |
World Pentax Day Gallery |
World Pentax Day Photo Map |
Pentax Resources |
Articles and Tutorials |
Member-Submitted Articles |
Recommended Gear |
Firmware Update Guide |
Firmware Updates |
Pentax News |
Pentax Lens Databases |
Pentax Lens Reviews |
Pentax Lens Search |
Third-Party Lens Reviews |
Lens Compatibility |
Pentax Serial Number Database |
In-Depth Reviews |
SLR Lens Forum |
Sample Photo Archive |
Forum Discussions |
New Posts |
Today's Threads |
Photo Threads |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Recent Updates |
Today's Photos |
Quick Searches |
Unanswered Threads |
Recently Liked Posts |
Forum RSS Feed |
Go to Page... |
|
Search this Thread |
08-15-2016, 02:46 PM | #106 |
People will argue handlessly over this... But to me: - the 24-70 is just a tamron rebadge using even tamron AF motor and tamrons optics. (Beside some former Pentax employee that designed FA43 an FA77 and many other lens now work for tamron). The tamron can be found for 800-900$, so that 400-500$ cheaper than the Pentax. People would say that the Pentax has Pentax coating, WR and high build quality. Tamron version has its WR equivalent look to have nice build quality... So only difference that could only possibly remain is the HD coating. Is it worth 400-500€$? - In Canikon world, you have the choice to buy new either sigma or tamron (or tokina) and also the brand. If we take the tamron 24-70 + the branded of each manufacturer, the price the same basically except for Sony. If we keep only sigma/tamron lenses, Canikon much cheaper. If you compare 3rd party options, they are in 99% of the time way cheaper (at times half as much when comparing "current" Name Brand specific lens to "current" 3rd Party specific lens) than the name brands lens. | |
08-15-2016, 11:35 PM | #107 |
I was just comparing "Name Brand" FF lenses to each other. And like I said in an earlier post, it's a Catch 22 with lens makers nowadays to where the "Demand" of lenses (in general) isn't really there for Pentax's Kmount, so they aren't going to be releasing any "New"/current lenses. If you compare 3rd party options, they are in 99% of the time way cheaper (at times half as much when comparing "current" Name Brand specific lens to "current" 3rd Party specific lens) than the name brands lens. I remember reading, don't know if it is true that the Sony 70-200 was the best, but it is 50% more expensive! If you start to measure what the lens provide compared to the price, I am not sure the branded lenses are indeed that interresting. Even if the Sony or Pentax are a tiny bit better than the Sigma, is it worth it if you don't see it? And what if you provide to much credential to a brand/name and indeed it is the third party that does only lenses that get the best results? After all nobody would say Zeiss to make bad lenses... | |
08-16-2016, 12:22 AM | #108 |
The Tamron 24-70 is $1300 at BHPhotovideo. $800-900, is that second hand? No OEM would get into a price competition with a 3rd-party. Pentax (Ricoh Imaging) would not attempt to price-match a 3rd-party lens, with the corresponding decrease in quality (even if you don't see it easily). Thus, the only correct comparison is Pentax' D FA* 70-200 with Canon/Nikon/Sony's versions. I've recently seen a post - message from a Sigma official - saying how Sigma K-mount sales are orders of magnitude lower than Canon's and Nikon's. There are two necessary conditions of offering low prices: volume and features&quality compromises. Pentax doesn't have the volume... guess what would suffer? But that would be unacceptable from a flagship lens. | |
08-16-2016, 01:03 AM | #109 |
My email to Sigma about the 50mm ART lens availability in PK mount as I was dead serious about buying a K-1 "Hello, I am interested in the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art in a Pentax K mount. I would like to either purchase one, or purchase a new Sigma 50mm Art and convert it to the Pentax K mount. There is no other serious 50mm option for full frame Pentax mount besides the now discontinued and inferior 50mm f1.4 HSM. I am, and I am sure many others are as well, looking for a serious 50mm lens for the Pentax K-1. Pentax has stepped into the professional sphere ( the K-1 has the same sensor as the Nikon D810 ) and it deserves the excellent image quality that only Sigma can provide. Please consider not only this request, but this new market that has big opportunities. I look forward to hearing your response and to purchasing a Sigma Art lens. Thank you for your time. Sincerely" Here's Sigma's response: "Hello Andrew, Unfortunately the sale of Pentax mount lenses lags well behind all other mounts, manufacturing the full line of lenses isn’t warranted by the market demand. At Sigma we manufacture every product we sell in our factory in Japan, we have a finite amount of space which must be used to best serve the demands of the photo world. Canon mount lenses out sell Nikon mount lenses 100 to 1 and Nikon outsells Sony 40 to 1. Sony outsells Pentax close to the same as Nikon does Sony, there simply isn’t enough worldwide demand. We would love to manufacture all our lenses in every lens mount but it would be counterproductive. Sincerely, Paul Pizzano" If I was in Sigma's situation I would have a hard time believing that Pentax's mount demand would explode in such a little time, after all they only have previous sales records to follow. Frankly speaking, I don't think that demand for Pentax's mount has increased heavily, maybe just a little. I am a unabashed Pentax fanboy but I don't know if you could justify it to a corporate board that is perpetually strapped for cash. Pentax is sitting at 2-3% market share? | |
08-16-2016, 09:03 AM | #110 |
The thing is, there are enough Sigma K-mount lenses out there, if demand for them picks up, Sigma will know. Currently at Henry's here in Canada the are 16 Sigma lenses listed for Pentax. Do you folks honestly think Sigma needs you guys to tell them when Pentac K-mount lens sales pick up? They will know when it happens, they will look at their ;its;e k-mount sales chart and say "look K-mount sales are going up, they are getting close to the point where we should consider making another K-mount lens." Sending them a bunch of letters they have to pay people to answer isn't going to make their numbers look any different. If they wrote back and sent you their actual numbers something like "we sell about 600 of each Pentax k-mount lens every year. To do the R&D on Pentax K-mount lenses we'd have to sell 1500." If they gave you hard numbers like that would it make it easier for you understand the situation? i.e./ the pointless ness of even sending letters? For some reason people are finding it really hard to understand the situation. Quick synopsis... They know what their sales numbers are. They know where they need to be to produce a reasonable profit on K-mount lenses. Nothing you can say or do, no matter how many letters are written, the only thing that is going to make a difference is people buying existing K-mount glass. It doesn't matter how many Pentax cameras are sold. Many, like myself will not buy Sigma glass in any case. Pentax sales could be 10x what it is now. If they are guys like me buying in, that won't sell you even one Sigma K-mount lens. I'm done with Sigma. According to the letter, the biggest purchasers of Sigma lenses are Canon users..... you buy a Canon 6D or something? Really? What's the issue? Once you have the above letter in your hot little hands, you have all the information you need to make your buying decisions. Go with it. If you really love that lens, buy a the camera that best suits your needs that goes with it. I wouldn't waste 5 minutes of my time trying to convince Sigma to change their minds. If you really want Sigma back in K-mount development, organize a movement to buy existing Sigma glass, prove there are customers out there willing to lay out big bucks year after year to keep Sigma solvent in their K-mount R&D department. There's a lot of us out there that see Sigma lenses as glass for people looking for throw away lenses to give them something to shoot with until they get what they really want. Do you really want the Sigma 70-200, if you could have the Pentax version, or even the Nikon, Canon, or in that case, the Tamron version? There are very few who think Sigma is in the end what they really want. But if you are one of them... buy a Canon, sounds like it will always have more glass available for it than any other mount. After Nikon, Sony , Pentax and everyone else have been dumped from the Sigma line up, it sounds like they will still have a profitable Canon operation. That's what you want. A Canon.... deal with it. Last edited by normhead; 08-16-2016 at 09:14 AM. | |
08-16-2016, 01:15 PM | #111 |
No OEM would get into a price competition with a 3rd-party. Pentax (Ricoh Imaging) would not attempt to price-match a 3rd-party lens, with the corresponding decrease in quality (even if you don't see it easily). Thus, the only correct comparison is Pentax' D FA* 70-200 with Canon/Nikon/Sony's versions. For quality, price match and competition there no absolute. Zeiss typically much more expensive than Canon, Nikon or Pentax. The OEM kit lenses are sold at the lowest price possible bundled with camera and when you compare a sigma 17-50 to a Pentax 16-50, not only the sigma is cheaper, has in lens stabilization but it AF motor look to be far less problematic and faster. The new DFA look good and I hope they justify their value but there absolutely no reason to think that all OEM lenses are at same level (so for Canon you compare to what ? Version I? II ?) or the third party always worse. Sigma and tamron focus now much more on the premium segment with f/1.4 prime and lot of fast zoom while OEM like Pentax have also lot of lenses like the 18-55, 50-200, DA35 & DA50 that in no way compare favorably to the third party offering except in price. And if third party like tamron are so bad, for sure you can't compare a 24-70 Canon L to a Pentax DFA 24-70 that is basically a tamron... Either it is as good and it can be compared to an OEM design... Either it is not. Your opinion but a least stay consistant. And think of it there also 18-270, DA35 macro ltd, DA16-50, DA50-135, DA12-24 that exist also in OEM version... I've recently seen a post - message from a Sigma official - saying how Sigma K-mount sales are orders of magnitude lower than Canon's and Nikon's. There are two necessary conditions of offering low prices: volume and features&quality compromises. Pentax doesn't have the volume... guess what would suffer? But that would be unacceptable from a flagship lens. Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-16-2016 at 01:20 PM. | |
08-16-2016, 01:57 PM | #112 |
Maybe it's saying more about Canon and Nikon users, than anything else: either Canon users are the most parsimonious by a wide margin, or perhaps Nikon users are more brand-conscious. | |
08-16-2016, 02:13 PM | #113 |
If we take the Sigma representative at his word, that means, for every K-mount lens they sell, 1600 Nikon mount lenses go out the door, along with 160,000 Canon mount lenses. I'm not sure I believe those figures, but even if there were a few zeroes added for dramatic effect, it makes you wonder why they would bother with K-mount versions in the first place. Maybe it's saying more about Canon and Nikon users, than anything else: either Canon users are the most parsimonious by a wide margin, or perhaps Nikon users are more brand-conscious. | |
08-16-2016, 02:19 PM | #114 |
If we take the Sigma representative at his word, that means, for every K-mount lens they sell, 1600 Nikon mount lenses go out the door, along with 160,000 Canon mount lenses. I'm not sure I believe those figures, but even if there were a few zeroes added for dramatic effect, it makes you wonder why they would bother with K-mount versions in the first place. Maybe it's saying more about Canon and Nikon users, than anything else: either Canon users are the most parsimonious by a wide margin, or perhaps Nikon users are more brand-conscious. | |
08-16-2016, 03:31 PM | #115 |
Exactly. Sigma and Tamron aren't just neglecting Pentax, they are also neglecting Sony too. Sigma has only released 4 APS-C primes for E-mount (the old 19/30/60 f2.8's and the 30 f1.4) - and has released NO lenses for Sony's full-frame FE mount. And Tamron has only ever released ONE lens for Sony E-mount - an 18-200 zoom. So Pentax is getting a better deal from Sigma and Tamron than Sony is. Interestingly, SamYang has released far more lenses for Sony E- mount than Tamron and Sigma combined have. From consumer products such as photographic lenses in a wide assortment of focal lengths for full-frame and APS-C digital SLR (DSLR) cameras and Sony mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, So it doesn't make any sense for Tamron to compete against their own lenses. There are metabones, a-mount, and sigma adapters to convert various lenses to FE mount. But you lose various Sony features when you do that. So there isn't any financial incentive for Sigma to build lenses for the FE mount other than support their MC11 adapter. A mixed bag of support. | |
08-16-2016, 04:33 PM | #116 |
Site Supporter | I used to be a Canon shooter. Then I switched to Nikon. The learning curve was pretty short for that change. Then I purchased 3 different Fuji X models. Again the learning curve was pretty short. When the Pentax K3ii came out I got excited about "pixel shift". I bought a K3ii. The camera and menus were incredibly different from what I was used to with Canon, Nikon, and Fuji. I'd say that it took me a good year to feel 100% comfortable with the K3ii . I know a couple of well know professional photographers who are long term Nikon guys. Both purchased a K1 and gave it a try. After a couple weeks they said the K1's images were terrific (better than their Nikon D810 images). However, they both returned (or sold) their K1's because they were frustrated with the long learning curve. Those of us here who have had digital Pentax cameras for a long time have come to love the Pentax features, controls, and menus. I believe that it's these very features, controls, menus, interfaces that we love that is what turns off non-Pentax photographers and are a bar to entry into the Pentax world. Few new to Pentax will admit the reason they went back to their old camera system was their struggle to learn the new Pentax camera system. That would point the finger at them. Instead, they point to the "lack of lenses" (which I don't buy because there are lots of great K mount lenses and Pentax will be releasing even more soon). I believe that there may be many Nikon and Canon photographers who are absolutely intrigued by the fabulous things they are reading about the K1's I.Q. and unique features. But they are reluctant to make the jump because they are hearing that highly experienced Nikon and Canon photographers who have already tried the K1, loved the images, but in the end dumped the K1 because they just couldn't get over the long learning curve. I guess at the end of the day it has a bit to do with old dogs and new tricks. |
08-16-2016, 07:31 PM | #117 |
Proposed new on google shopping among the first results. In France for 900€ I can get from quite reputable sellers. All on the contrary, if price was not important factor, lenses at $3000, $5000, $10000 would sell quite well or no less than the kit lens that take more than half of sales in volume. People are sensitive to price and if companies like sigma or tamron exist this is for this reason. They also fill gap in the lineup... If you want a 180macro or a 300mm f/2.8 as an example Pentax has nothing. For quality, price match and competition there no absolute. Zeiss typically much more expensive than Canon, Nikon or Pentax. The OEM kit lenses are sold at the lowest price possible bundled with camera and when you compare a sigma 17-50 to a Pentax 16-50, not only the sigma is cheaper, has in lens stabilization but it AF motor look to be far less problematic and faster. The new DFA look good and I hope they justify their value but there absolutely no reason to think that all OEM lenses are at same level (so for Canon you compare to what ? Version I? II ?) or the third party always worse. Sigma and tamron focus now much more on the premium segment with f/1.4 prime and lot of fast zoom while OEM like Pentax have also lot of lenses like the 18-55, 50-200, DA35 & DA50 that in no way compare favorably to the third party offering except in price. And if third party like tamron are so bad, for sure you can't compare a 24-70 Canon L to a Pentax DFA 24-70 that is basically a tamron... Either it is as good and it can be compared to an OEM design... Either it is not. Your opinion but a least stay consistant. And think of it there also 18-270, DA35 macro ltd, DA16-50, DA50-135, DA12-24 that exist also in OEM version... This is problem for Pentaxians, because choice is good. This is only a problem for Pentax if enough people decide to not take a Pentax because of that but because many people that buy Pentax today might decide to buy sigma from time to time, overall Pentax may be better with a smaller market and selling all the lenses... I don't think that's really an issue for sigma, if there no sales in Pentax and more in Canon, that simplify their business. What I said is that OEMs don't try to match prices with 3rd-party makers, and that OEM prices should be compared within themselves. That part of the post was explicitly referring to the D FA* 70-200, not to the rebadged Tamron. There's nothing wrong in wanting to pay less and accepting the compromises; OTOH there will be compromises (especially when talking about a very low volume maker like Pentax/RI). Why do you think Sigma has 2 versions of its 150-600, one costing twice as much as the other? It's not because the difference is irrelevant for anyone But what compromises would you incorporate in a product - let's say a Sigma-priced Pentax D FA 70-200 - when the 3rd-party maker says that simply adapting the existing lens to K-mount is too expensive for such low sales? Said lens being already available in other mounts? I don't even want to think about it. The solution, thus, cannot be for Pentax to make cheaper and compromised lenses; Pentax should continue to rebuild their OEM brand reputation by being "up there" with Canon/Nikon. And let's hope the 3rd-party situation will improve; but for that, you people should buy more 3rd-party lenses. Don't count on me, I'm a Pentax user. | |
08-16-2016, 08:21 PM | #118 |
I could see Pentax producing a Plastic Fantastic-like lens for the K-1 set that is basically a reboot of the F or FA 28mm f2.8. How to achieve serious cost cutting there is beyond me, but they did it with the 35 f2.4, so... but otherwise, I agree, keep the quality up and maybe spend a little on advertising to try and make it known to the consumer. Honestly thought, all the glass I "need" as a hobbyist is available on K-mount, either brand new and on the shelf, or used. And seriously, I think Sigma did this to themselves; why buy these nice looking new lenses that are still overweight and often times have serious autofocus issues? I love shooting in dark clubs / bars or at night on the street, so that 30 1.4 Art should be right up my street, but it just doesn't seem worth the hassle. And it's no the only Sigma with that issue lately. | |
08-16-2016, 11:07 PM | #119 |
But what compromises would you incorporate in a product - let's say a Sigma-priced Pentax D FA 70-200 - when the 3rd-party maker says that simply adapting the existing lens to K-mount is too expensive for such low sales? Said lens being already available in other mounts? I don't even want to think about it. The solution, thus, cannot be for Pentax to make cheaper and compromised lenses; Pentax should continue to rebuild their OEM brand reputation by being "up there" with Canon/Nikon. And let's hope the 3rd-party situation will improve; but for that, you people should buy more 3rd-party lenses. Don't count on me, I'm a Pentax user. - shouldn't the Sony be better being 50% more expensive? There likely something to justify that high price and Sony market share bigger than Pentax. - shouldn't the Canon that is a bit more expensive and sold much more have to make far less compromse in term of R&D and design because the volume in many time better ? And so shouldn't we expect it to be better? I don't think the DFA70-200 is necessarilly worse, it may end up better, but its funny to discount without even looking the sigma/tamron because they can't obviously and on the other side consider that any OEM lens are similar. Even more funy where there several version of then with quite some difference in price too. And if the comparison can be done only on the 70-200 and not the 15-30 or 24-70, that mean the transtandard, maybe the most important lens is not up to the level of other OEM ? If you notice Pentax didn't put the star designation to it neither... Wouldn't that be a problem? Personnally I think the latest tamron/sigma are insanely good and you'll not notice much difference in quality. That's why Pentax didn't hesitate to rebadge some tamrons. Some of their design may actually be better than what the OEM have to offer. The build quality also increased significantly the last years and if Pentax past is an indication, SDM was not the best choice ever. The price difference may come from build quality and higher standard but you also buy the brand and for Pentax the low volume. How much goes into the brand name and supposedly superior product, this is completely unknown. Looking fast on Photozone as an example, the tamron 24-70 look to fare a bit less than the Canon L-II and the Nikon look significantly better than the Canon and Tamron... Theses lenses are not equal. They are all great but not equals. Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-16-2016 at 11:20 PM. | |
08-17-2016, 01:01 AM | #120 |
Once again, you're not following my logic - but your own; once again, I'm only claiming what I wrote. The D FA* 70-200 had an initial production volume of just 1,000 units per month; and that's not continuous monthly sales. At such low volumes, my concerns about cheapening it out are valid. R&D is costly, components are costly, distribution and support is costly. And we know as a fact that Ricoh Imaging doesn't work with huge (over 100%) operating margins, so they could half the price of their products and still make a profit. OTOH, I'm careful not to make a "quality scale" based on price, like you're attempting in my name. Why is the Sony 50% more expensive? The correct answer is: I don't know. It might be made to higher standards, but that's to be seen by analyzing the product itself. Or it might be another factor. It doesn't feel like a compromised product, and neither does the Canon. Nor the Pentax, obviously. The problem here is that your strawman logic attempts to generalize for comparing multiple brands, and at the other end of the price spectrum than my actual claim. Well, that's why it's a strawman, right? The D FA* 70-200 is on the market for a while, and while there aren't many proper reviews it appears to be a very good lens. And, if we compare it with the 3rd-party Tamron and Sigma, it's obvious which is the most ambitious design: - 8 special glass elements versus 5/5. - full AW vs. some weather sealing / none. - more "high quality plastic" used for the 3rd-party lenses (and who knows what's inside!) I don't have any review directly comparing those lenses, but I'm tempted to say the D FA* has superior optics, too. However, that's not the same as "discounting without even looking" the 3rd-party lenses - which are certainly good lenses for a good price. I'm only discounting the idea of Pentax making their top-level products at a price point to match the current street prices of 3rd-party offerings; I'm warning about the dangers behind this idea. As for why rebadging/modifying the 15-30 and 24-70 instead of making their own versions, the priority IMO was to have such lenses in time for the K-1's launch, and at a lower price level than if made in-house with the same criteria as for the D FA*. Them being optically "good enough" was a necessary condition, but not the trigger. Likely, a true Pentax D FA* 24-70 f/2.8 would've been as expensive as the Nikon and Canon's latest versions - every bit as expensive as the D FA* 70-200. You called it "maybe the most important lens", but how do you balance price with optical and mechanical quality? I'd say, this is a good compromise... for now. | |
|
Bookmarks |
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
aperture, camera, choice, companies, demand, dslr, k-mount, lens, lenses, lot, macro, money, mount, party, pentax, pentax lens, photography, production, run, shift, sigma, slr lens, third, third party lens, wr |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Third Party Lens equivalents? | BruceBanner | Pentax SLR Lens Discussion | 7 | 06-18-2016 04:11 PM |
Why no third party grips for the K3? | Jonathan Mac | Pentax DSLR Discussion | 23 | 01-11-2015 02:36 AM |
Are all third party zooms soft at 2.8? | adwb | Pentax SLR Lens Discussion | 45 | 08-21-2014 04:33 AM |
LBA, why ohh why are you sucking my money away? | VoiceOfReason | Pentax SLR Lens Discussion | 24 | 05-13-2012 09:34 AM |
Are third party grips and batteries safe to use? | jeryst | Pentax Camera and Field Accessories | 5 | 11-26-2009 09:37 PM |