[bossa]

These prices are the usual Australian prices and have been for years.

http://www.teds.com.au/digital-camera-lenses?manufacturer=7

[Pablom]

you can rest assure that is Pentax had an equivalent zoom of constant f2.8, it will be priced higher than the 60-250.
F4 <> F2.8

[Medium FormatPro]

$1425 for the 16-50? Yikes. Even in Canada it's $1,099.

Don't even look at it - the lens'. Run far, far away and then uphill. That Pentax lens (in my professional perspective) is by far the worst lens that Pentax has ever made. I'd rather even have a lens baby over that one; or perhaps use the 16-50 for target practice.

If Pentax still has this one out in a year or two I'd be very surprised. Perhaps they should also throw in a five year warranty with it; which also clearly states - always have a secondary back up lens with this one, because... You'll most likely need both the warranty and the back up lens

[ElJamoquio]

Nikon's 70-200/2.8 now priced at B&H is $2,396.95 Or, 3 bucks close to $2400.

Up to a day ago Pentax' focal length equivalent lens was $900, now is $1525. [Digression: that $1500+ price we in Australia were paying for years already and supporting Pentax like that, so nothing new for us there]

Do you think it is all right for Nikon to ask for their lens $2400? I mean they are world's no 1 aren't they,

If you're comparing FF glass, you should use a 70-200 F/4 without IS. I think Canon's is ~$800 or something.

[germar]

Don't even look at it - the lens'. Run far, far away and then uphill. That Pentax lens (in my professional perspective) is by far the worst lens that Pentax has ever made. I'd rather even have a lens baby over that one; or perhaps use the 16-50 for target practice.

Wow.

I've owned and shot "professionally" (meaning I've been paid for my work) with this lens for about 5 years. I've also had the motor replaced, which is irritating and unfortunate. But I think your rant against this lens is a bit over the top, honestly. The lens, when properly used, takes excellent, client-pleasing photos that most photogs would be proud to sell. And while there's lots of bitching about the SDM issue, I've never seen too many folks attack it as you have for poor optical performance. Perhaps you had a bad copy?

Sorry for going off topic, but I think the 16-50 (beyond the SDM) is a helluva lens and didn't deserve that rant.

[jeztastic]

I strongly suspect Pentax will point the finger at the retailers, as they did with the last price hike. I suspect that they have been pulling prices down against Pentax's wishes. Now they are being told they can only get access to this rebate deal if they put the prices back where they belong.

[Medium FormatPro]

Perhaps you had a bad copy?

I got one and used it professionally for about fourteen months before electing to get rid of it. It was starting to have the zoom issues; as many others (dozens) have noticed in places such as B&H comments about the lens. I also personally know of three other people whom have had the lens lock up on the; two of them just outside of warranty.

It's not really a rant. I would never buy it again - and wouldn't even literally take it if it were given to me - it's that bad. Also as far as reliability, I would not mind doing a survey to find out which one is actually Pentax's worse quality lens (durability, functionality, etc... in real world conditions). I'm sure this one would be the "winner" for the worst quality award.

Be sure to catch those B&H reviews - which are by far not isolated incidents. Major issues with focusing (focus device failure), even manual focus failure, and zoom lock.

Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED SDM Lens 21650 B&H Photo Video

[Alizarine]

Wait for Photokina. I have a feeling we're going to be wow'd!

Hopefully not by higher prices..

.. also, Pentax has been wow-ing a lot of people with their cameras lately... lenses... not that much. Most of my non-Pentax buds like the older glass; with the DA line (with exception to the Limiteds) takes a lot of brainwork for them to give positive reactions to.

[nanok]

this is great, the best news i've seen in years. i think i'll blow my next salary on some pentax glass now.

for the first time since i'm shooting digital, i can buy something in europe for less than i would pay in the us, instead of 1.5 times more (at least).

joke aside, this can only be a mistake, the real wtf here is, apart from letting such a mistake happen, how can you makes such a move (which is prone to confusion) on friday night, and risk the shitstorm to rave on for the whole weekend (before somebody can wake up and fix it, likely on monday evening if lucky)

now, if it's not a mistake.. ahem, it's a mistake. just a silly mistake. can't be true. this never... happened.. ahem.. before? oh.. wait, pentax lens prices going double over night? nope. never before in known history.

[ElJamoquio]

September Fools' Day doesn't really have the same ring to it.

Pentax Fools' Day comes twice a year?

[sjwaldron]

now, if it's not a mistake.. ahem, it's a mistake. just a silly mistake. can't be true. this never... happened.. ahem.. before? oh.. wait, pentax lens prices going double over night? nope. never before in known history.

If it is a mistake, they have serious incontinence issues. Flimflam consistency probably damages customer relations and Pentax USA doesn't seem to care. Most people who know a thing or two about the state of Pentax glass don't see enough value in it for them to charge as much as or more than FF glass from the larger companies.

[Rondec]

Don't even look at it - the lens'. Run far, far away and then uphill. That Pentax lens (in my professional perspective) is by far the worst lens that Pentax has ever made. I'd rather even have a lens baby over that one; or perhaps use the 16-50 for target practice.

If Pentax still has this one out in a year or two I'd be very surprised. Perhaps they should also throw in a five year warranty with it; which also clearly states - always have a secondary back up lens with this one, because... You'll most likely need both the warranty and the back up lens

Well, I own a 16-50 and it certainly isn't perfect -- I would be fine with Pentax releasing a second version -- but it is nowhere nearly as bad as you make out. First off, as Germar says, optically it isn't too bad, seems like SDM is prone to fail in many copies which is a bad deal. Second, Pentax has made a lot worse lenses in the past. Some of the uncoated lenses from the past were pretty bad with regard to flare resistance. My original kit lens, the FA J 28-80 was atrocious, with really poor contrast, muddy colors and very prone to flare.

Anyway, I'll keep shooting with mine until Pentax comes out with something with similar width and sealing.

[bossa]

Nikon's 70-200/2.8 now priced at B&H is $2,396.95 Or, 3 bucks close to $2400.

Up to a day ago Pentax' focal length equivalent lens was $900, now is $1525. [Digression: that $1500+ price we in Australia were paying for years already and supporting Pentax like that, so nothing new for us there]

Do you think it is all right for Nikon to ask for their lens $2400? I mean they are world's no 1 aren't they, so they can do whatever they please? And you will jump ship because Pentax asks for their lens $1525? That's still $875 less than Nikon… You can get yourself an extra body. Or another lens or two.

Then, yes, you may say Nikon's lens is FF, there's helluva lot of glass they sell. So yes, let's take into account. Let's divide 70-200/2.8's price by 1.5, or, by the crop factor of the Pentax's sensor. $2400 /1.5 = $1600. That's still more than what Pentax asks for their crop sensor equivalent lens; so maybe you can add extra lens filter too?

And you still think it's too much for Pentax to ask a *fair* equivalent price for their gear? You think they should work as hard as mules, rolling out amazing gear and sell all for bargain, under the grisly threat that you will jump the ship otherwise and be very, very unhappy?

If you still think so, then perhaps that what you ask is too much of a commodity; you ask for a privilege to jump ships, but you deserve to be thrown overboard.

My 70-200 2.8 VR II cost $2900 here, my Zeiss 21 was 2k and my 35/1.4G $1850. We pay 10% GST and 4 to 6% import duty on some items. That VRII was 700 more than I could have got a grey import for BUT I would have had to pay at least $300 in taxes and shipping costs so I decided the extra money was for the local 'genuine' warranty. They know what they're doing when they make these prices and unless you are buying something where the combined cost of the item plus shipping is under $1,000 you're screwed either way.

These new Pentax prices are a joke. I paid !500 for my DA*50-135 and it's now spent a total of 11 weeks at the CR Kennedy repair center (and Pentax in Japan) over two separate occasions awaiting awaiting parts for repair.

[selar]

Dont worry it will be back to normal prices next month.

[borno]

Nikon's 70-200/2.8 now priced at B&H is $2,396.95 Or, 3 bucks close to $2400.

Up to a day ago Pentax' focal length equivalent lens was $900, now is $1525. [Digression: that $1500+ price we in Australia were paying for years already and supporting Pentax like that, so nothing new for us there]

Do you think it is all right for Nikon to ask for their lens $2400? I mean they are world's no 1 aren't they, so they can do whatever they please? And you will jump ship because Pentax asks for their lens $1525? That's still $875 less than Nikon… You can get yourself an extra body. Or another lens or two.

Then, yes, you may say Nikon's lens is FF, there's helluva lot of glass they sell. So yes, let's take into account. Let's divide 70-200/2.8's price by 1.5, or, by the crop factor of the Pentax's sensor. $2400 /1.5 = $1600. That's still more than what Pentax asks for their crop sensor equivalent lens; so maybe you can add extra lens filter too?

And you still think it's too much for Pentax to ask a *fair* equivalent price for their gear? You think they should work as hard as mules, rolling out amazing gear and sell all for bargain, under the grisly threat that you will jump the ship otherwise and be very, very unhappy?

If you still think so, then perhaps that what you ask is too much of a commodity; you ask for a privilege to jump ships, but you deserve to be thrown overboard.

You can't compare a f2.8 lens to a f4 lens, crop factor is not relevant to the f stop. That's like comparing a 200mm f4 to a 300mm f2.8, big difference.