[Ash]

Goreman, if you truly believe your 50-135's SDM will fail and leave you regretful to have invested that kind of money into it, you may as well sell it to save the disappointment. Pentax's measly 1yr warranty is not necessarily an indication that Pentax don't stand behind their SDM products.

I sympathise with all who have had SDM failures, and don't for a moment discount the unacceptable rates SDM lenses have been shown to fail (you can see my numerous contributions on the issue on all the other SDM threads)... and it's a shame for Pentax's premier lineup to have to suffer these kinds of issues, but the technology itself is not a complete failure.

Take your money elsewhere, I know I will also until SDM is significantly improved, and Pentax may actually do something positive about it. But to me there are no other lenses like the 16-50 and 50-135.

[GoremanX]

I sympathise with all who have had SDM failures, and don't for a moment discount the unacceptable rates SDM lenses have been shown to fail (you can see my numerous contributions on the issue on all the other SDM threads)... and it's a shame for Pentax's premier lineup to have to suffer these kinds of issues, but the technology itself is not a complete failure.

oops.. how did this turn into an SDM thread?

Pentax gives a 1 year warranty on ALL its lenses. That's what offends me. It doesn't matter if it's a DA*, an FA Limited, or any other type, you only get a lousy 1 year warranty on them (2 in Canada). Why? Most of these lenses are perfectly fine and will continue to function "like new" for many years to come. So why not have the same confidence-inspiring 4-6 year warranty that third party lens manufacturers offer, even on their lowliest lenses?

The exception to that is SDM lenses... those will die someday, it's inevitable. A low-torque micro-motor cannot live indefinitely under the conditions that Pentax puts it under. It's unfortunate but it's true. When I bought my DA*, I made a gamble that Pentax would replace SDM before mine fails. I immediately regretted it when I first got the lens and it wouldn't focus at all for the first 3-5 minutes. The SDM refused to move. Eventually it woke up and I breathed a sigh of relief, but that one moment confirmed what everyone else has been saying: SDM will fail.

I'm still using a 20 year old SMC Pentax F 35-70mm that auto-focuses faster than any other lens I own. How many SDM lenses will still be auto-focusing in 20 years? Or even 10 or 5 years? How many people who bought theirs in late 2007 still have a working SDM that never failed? That's only 2 years ago!

[Arpe]

Then get one! There's a perfectly good Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, and a slightly cheaper Tamron 70-200mm F2.8. It's not like the choices aren't there, they're just not made by Pentax (yet). Those two lenses have excellent IQ, and the Sigma even has HSM focusing, which puts SDM to shame.

I would get the Sigma - but there's no SDM/HSM compatible 1.4x TC which is a must. I use the 1.4x lots, but also need the f2.8 often enough to overlook the Pentax f4 offerings.

It's no use Pentax bringing out an SDM 70-200 if it's the same old maybe unreliable, not very fast SDM.

[pcarfan]

Why Pentax doesnt come out with DA* 70-200mm 2.8 DA* 24-70mm 2.8

Why?

Because it makes too much sense

[Marc Sabatella]

I don't think it makes sense at all. There's no way Pentax could put out such a lens for as little as Sigma or Tamron. Few people would buy it over the cheaper alternatives, and Pentax would have lost a ton of money on the R&D.

[pcarfan]

I don't think it makes sense at all. There's no way Pentax could put out such a lens for as little as Sigma or Tamron. Few people would buy it over the cheaper alternatives, and Pentax would have lost a ton of money on the R&D.

I don't think Pentax could afford to only do the lenses that 3rd parties don't, as that doesn't leave them with many options. I think they should make lenses that are slightly more expensive but offer better quality. A 24-70/2.8 similar in quality to the Nikon counter part but for a bit less than 1k would be nice. Also, a 80-200 similar to the FA* quality for about 1k would be perfect.

But, I think sigma with it's 100-300, 500/4.5, and the more recent 50/1.4 is making lenses that is second to none. I have a feeling the newly announced 70-200 is going to have stunning IQ as well, which may leave Pentax and other brands in a tough position.

[pop4]

I would get the Sigma - but there's no SDM/HSM compatible 1.4x TC which is a must. I use the 1.4x lots, but also need the f2.8 often enough to overlook the Pentax f4 offerings.

The Kenko 1.5x Pz-AF SHQ TC works with SDM. My K-7, Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 HSM II and Kenko 1.5x Pz-AF SHQ Teleconverter combo works without any problems.

There's actually a for sale thread for a few in the marketplace right now HERE. And the seller even ships across the ditch to where you are!

[Marc Sabatella]

I don't think Pentax could afford to only do the lenses that 3rd parties don't, as that doesn't leave them with many options.

Well, they've done pretty well so far on that kind of strategy. But I'd agree you can't *exclusively* make only niche lenses. There would certainly some lenses where you'd be expected to add some value - "kit" lenses that you could sell cheap with the camera, lenses with weather sealing and quick shift, smaller versions of other lenses where possible, etc. I'm just not convinced they could enough value to an expensive lens like a 70-200 to pay off. I could be wrong, but I think it of it as a pretty big gamble - hardly the no-brainer people seem to be implying.

[CWyatt]

A 24-70/2.8 similar in quality to the Nikon counter part but for a bit less than 1k would be nice.

So Pentax should produce a top-level zoom lens at close to half the price Nikon does?

[GoremanX]

So Pentax should produce a top-level zoom lens at close to half the price Nikon does?

yes, it's the new *MAGICAL* economy!

[pcarfan]

So Pentax should produce a top-level zoom lens at close to half the price Nikon does?

No, you are right it's not possible. I am still thinking of the 16-50, 50-135 prices before the price hike. Those lenses have steallar IQ and were much cheaper before and thus hoping a Pentax 24-70 would be similar. But, with todays pricing it is not popssible indeed.

[Marc Sabatella]

Not sure what you were thinking the price of the 16-50 was before, but it's in the $700-$800 range right now (when yo can find it). That's not particularly higher than it's ever been (see the lens reviews on this site), and is barely *half* the cost of Nikon's equivalent. I'd assume that if Pentax were to put out a 24-70, they'd be pricing it quite a bit cheaper than Nikon as well - probably right around the 1K mark. But I'd still wonder how well it would do given the much cheaper Sigma and Tamron competition.

[GoremanX]

I paid $799 for my DA* 50-135mm. That's cheaper than it's ever been, and that's brand new with full warranty. Not sure where the "were much cheaper before" comment comes from. I realize there was a hike back in early 2009, but for the most part, a lot of prices have come back down and are now lower than ever.

[pcarfan]

If those Pentax DA* zooms are in the $700-800 range then I stand by my initial statement that Pentax can make a 24-70/2.8 for ~$1k. However, I retracted it as I did a quick ebay search and saw ebay prices of $1k+ for both those lenses and I remember them being in the $700-800, so that's where the 'much cheaper' statement comes from. But, now I know they CAN be had for less.....Hopefully that satisfies everybody

P.S: Can someone give me a link to a 16-50 from an authorized usa dealer selling for around $700-$800 I just might pull the trigger on that (If my FA31 deals falls through...but that's a long story). I have the $100 rebate and for ~$600'ish that would be a nice lens. B&H and adorama has it for around that price but they've been out of stock for a while, and the only once I can find are over $1k ...thank you.

[pcarfan]

.....but for the most part, a lot of prices have come back down and are now lower than ever.

Oh! how I wish if this happens to the FA31........and I don't think most prices are lower than ever before...