[yyyzzz]

While I am an ardent Pentax supporter, the alliance between Tokina and Pentax which prohibits Tokina from releasing its 12-24mm and 11-16mm to Pentax users is utterly outrageous. This stifles competition and further limits Pentax users' choice to wide angle lenses at an affordable price.

Given the astronomical rise in the price of the 12-24mm lens and given the Pentax-Tokina alliance, I am ready for a revolt. How about you!!!???

[Alfisti]

Thi sis why I scoff at the "Pentax is cheaper" claims. If it wasn't for IS you can buy a Nikon and load it with Tokina lenses for way less than you can with Pentax.

[reeftool]

Way,way back in the day, I had the same issue buying Soligor lenses for my Miranda which was owned by the same parent company. The Miranda branded lenses were quite a bit higher in price. However, they did offer some lenses to Miranda owners in the Soligor line that that didn't compete with the Miranda lineup. Most of the Tokina line up seems to be almost identical to the Pentax lenses, at least as far as sizes go. The exception is the 11-16 which a lot of people seem to want. Why they don't offer it up as a Pentax branded lens or make it available in a K mount is unknown except to the management of the companys. Tokina only seems to want to sell to Canon/Nikon users. They ignore everyone else.

[stevebrot]

Thi sis why I scoff at the "Pentax is cheaper" claims. If it wasn't for IS you can buy a Nikon and load it with Tokina lenses for way less than you can with Pentax.

"If it wasn't for IS..."

So buy a Nikon and pay for the IS...after all, we all know what happens with a small sensor and no IS...

Lens prices reflect the ability of the market to bear those prices and the requisite mark up to support the business. People complain about about lens prices out of one side of their mouth and out of the other speculate that Pentax will cease to exist due to diminishing revenue. Get real. Pentax needs the revenue and the market is obviously able to bear the prices.

As for the "anti-competitive" aspect of the Tokina/Pentax non-compete...The question that comes to my mind is why people expect that Tokina would want to go into direct competition to undercut their biggest OEM customer who also provides substantial engineering and design assistance?

I also thought of the Miranda/Soligor situation, though one must remember that both lines were owned and sold by the same company. I think that the current arrangement between Pentax and Tokina is more similar to the contracts that Vivitar had with its various manufacturers in the 70s and early 80s where Vivitar provided the designs.

Steve

[Marc Sabatella]

Given the astronomical rise in the price of the 12-24mm lens and given the Pentax-Tokina alliance, I am ready for a revolt. How about you!!!???

Pentax DA12-24 typical cost in 2007 according to this sites' review section: $725-$780
Pentax DA12-24 cost today: $719

Where is this "astronomical rise in price" I keep hearing about?

[Marc Sabatella]

While I am an ardent Pentax supporter, the alliance between Tokina and Pentax which prohibits Tokina from releasing its 12-24mm and 11-16mm to Pentax users is utterly outrageous. This stifles competition and further limits Pentax users' choice to wide angle lenses at an affordable price.

The only reason Tokina is able to sell the 12-24 cheaper for Canon & Nikon is that Pentax already did part of the design work for them, and Tokina can sell Canon & Nikon lenses in much higher numbers. If had Pentax not helped offset the cost of the design, and if Tokina were to also offer the lens for the much-lower-volume Pentax market, I see no reason to assume the price of the lens would be much if any lower than it is now.

As for the 11-16, do have documented evidence that it is the "alliance" between Tokina and Pentax that is preventing the release of the lens on Pentax, as opposed to simple economic realities of market share and ROI? (eg, same reasons, the same reaosn any number of Sigma or Tamron lenses are not available for Pentax, either)?

[Jewelltrail]

yyyzzz: I am ready for a revolt. How about you!!!???

I remember being disappointed when I first learned the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 was not an option for my Pentax DSLR. However, as several erudite Pentax people have said here: economics has its own laws to which we are subject. When I stop for a second and fathom the virtually limitless options available in lenses for my K20, the anomaly of an unavailable Tokina wide angle becomes trivial. I actually shoot some Nikon glass on my K20! Pentax can not be praised enough for the autonomy it affords it users.

Marc Sabatella: Pentax DA12-24 typical cost in 2007 according to this sites' review section: $725-$780
Pentax DA12-24 cost today: $719

Excellent response!

[jsherman999]

Pentax DA12-24 typical cost in 2007 according to this sites' review section: $725-$780
Pentax DA12-24 cost today: $719

Where is this "astronomical rise in price" I keep hearing about?

.


Very true, but ---> consider this.


(Tokina 12-24 f/4 for Nikon, $399 new from B&H.)


.

[jboyde]

I remember being disappointed when I first learned the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 was not an option for my Pentax DSLR. However, as several erudite Pentax people have said here: economics has its own laws to which we are subject. When I stop for a second and fathom the virtually limitless options available in lenses for my K20, the anomaly of an unavailable Tokina wide angle becomes trivial. I actually shoot some Nikon glass on my K20! Pentax can not be praised enough for the autonomy it affords it users.





Excellent response!

Im curious to which Nikon-Pentax adapter you use and what compromises you have to make.

[yyyzzz]

50mm fa f1.4 / DA 12-24mm f4 / 35mm fa f2. Look at the market price just a year ago. The MSRP is almost meaningless, IMHO.

[yyyzzz]

The prices of 35mm fa and 50mm fa f1.4 are getting out of hand. I can live with this since I have many 50mm lenses.

But how many ultra wide glasses are available? Sigma and Tamron have four or five offerings. But none of them is perfect for me. Clearly we have fewer choices in ultra wide angle lenses. We also have to pay a significantly higher price for the fact.

I certainly understand all the reasons behind the high prices we have to pay. That is not the point. I am unhappy about the fact, not the reasons behind the fact.

[axl]

Pentax DA12-24 typical cost in 2007 according to this sites' review section: $725-$780
Pentax DA12-24 cost today: $719

Where is this "astronomical rise in price" I keep hearing about?

Maybe on your side of the puddle Marc!
In UK Jan 2009 you could have bought DA12-24 for around £600-650 now in December of the same year used ones go for that price and new ones have price tags of £900-949!!!
I believe those are the astronomical price rises OP was referring to...

[Just1MoreDave]

50mm fa f1.4 / DA 12-24mm f4 / 35mm fa f2. Look at the market price just a year ago. The MSRP is almost meaningless, IMHO.

Including the FA35/2 just weakens your point. The price spike is because it was discontinued. Pentax probably shipped their last copies of it many months ago. That's just supply and demand economics.

It's actually amazing that any lenses are similar in 2007 and 2009 prices. Anyone want to buy my house for its 2007 price? Ever notice that the dollar changes its value vs. other currencies?

Now, UK prices appear to be set with no rationale at all. Unless they want customers to take a vacation to NYC and still come out ahead.

[stevebrot]

Including the FA35/2 just weakens your point. The price spike is because it was discontinued. Pentax probably shipped their last copies of it many months ago. That's just supply and demand economics...

Dave,
I thought it was discontinued as well. It not listed on pentaximaging.com, but is available through the Pentax Web store (PentaxWebstore smcP FA 35mm f/2.0 AL) at $475. It is also still on the active list at Pentax Japan's Web site.

To address yyyzzz's gripe regarding price
When the FA 35/2 was priced at $299 (street price at B&H and never much cheaper elsewhere), it was considered to be one of the best bargains in the photographic world. Now it costs $176 more.

Why the gripe?

The FA 50/1.4 is currently $359 (B&H today), up from $219 a year or so ago. Yes, that is a bit of a bump. OTOH, it was often wondered just how Pentax could possibly be selling such a fine lens at that price point. Given the nature of the lens, I personally consider that $359 is still a reasonable price point. Interestingly, $359 is the gray market price point for the Canon EF 50/1.4. You can get a cheaper 50 from Nikon, but the emphasis is on the word cheap (as in build). If you want the optically comparable AF-S 50/1.4 G, you are going to have to pony up another $75. The manual focus Nikkor 50/1.4 AIS is going to be $100 more.

Again...why the gripe?

If you don't like your lens choices, why not just change systems?

Steve

[stevebrot]

I certainly understand all the reasons behind the high prices we have to pay. That is not the point. I am unhappy about the fact not the reasons behind the fact.

I must be in a piss mood today, but my understanding is that complaining about things that are reasonable is called whining. Sure, we would all love to have tons of options at a low price, but I will take today's pricing over what we suffered with in the 60s and 70s when a decent lens meant a half-month's salary at minimum wage!

Steve