[joe.penn]

With only two lenses, it's already 'free' to switch to Nikon... free camera. Plus I'd get to keep whatever I could sell my K-5 for.

@ElJamoquio said that [as I am drooling over my very tasty nikon mount glass].

The Tokina is a better comparison to the Pentax and costs $400

Not only is it a better comparison, the Pentax is Tokina glass...

[Aristophanes]

The 35/2.4 is new as well. Problem is that the two of them are reworks, in cheaper form, of existing designs.

DA55mm is a better comparison to those two lenses in my opinion, and costs twice as much - $800 = $400 more.




The Tokina is a better comparison to the Pentax and costs $400. Pentax is over twice as much = $500 more.


With only two lenses, it's already 'free' to switch to Nikon... free camera. Plus I'd get to keep whatever I could sell my K-5 for.

I am comparing like for like and OEM brand for brand. The DA* 55 is a different beast than the basic fast 50's.

Likely when the brands figure out that they are pricing too high and sales volumes plummet (and they will) prices will correct. Time to hold your breath.

[Dan]

The only way to look at the prices is compare and contrast:...

This is a fair point, and some of your comparisons make sense, but perhaps the best approach is compare lenses with the same optical design. Some of the best Pentax zoom lenses are available for Nikon and Canon via the Tokina "Pro" series, which developed these lenses jointly with Pentax. Let's say you want a wide-angle zoom with the performance of the DA12-24 or the DA*16-50. Let's compare the Pentax to the Nikon-mount options (all B&H):

Pentax SMCP-DA 12-24mm f/4 ED AL (IF) $897
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124 AF Pro DX II Lens $449

Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM $1297
Tokina AT-X 16-50mm f/2.8 Pro FX $749

The Tokina lenses are pro-grade lenses with metal bodies. There are very well made. But, some may say, "the Pentax versions have better coatings!!" I would say that there's not much evidence of a significant difference, as Tokina's coatings are very good. But, some may add, "The Pentax 16-50 has SDM!!!" To which I would reply "ADVANTAGE TOKINA!!"

I have not had great luck with Pentax quality control. I see no point in paying a $450-$550 premium to get a lens with the same optical formula, and that is no better made (and may be worse). The price differences are far too great.

How many people would buy the Pentax lenses at these prices if they could buy the very-similar Tokina lenses for a fraction of the price? If you wanted both of these lenses you could buy the Nikon versions and use the savings to get a "free" body!

Dan

[Aristophanes]

This is a fair point, and some of your comparisons make sense, but perhaps the best approach is compare lenses with the same optical design. Some of the best Pentax zoom lenses are available for Nikon and Canon via the Tokina "Pro" series, which developed these lenses jointly with Pentax. Let's say you want a wide-angle zoom with the performance of the DA12-24 or the DA*16-50. Let's compare the Pentax to the Nikon-mount options (all B&H):

Pentax SMCP-DA 12-24mm f/4 ED AL (IF) $897
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124 AF Pro DX II Lens $449

Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM $1297
Tokina AT-X 16-50mm f/2.8 Pro FX $749

The Tokina lenses are pro-grade lenses with metal bodies. There are very well made. But, some may say, "the Pentax versions have better coatings!!" I would say that there's not much evidence of a significant difference, as Tokina's coatings are very good. But, some may add, "The Pentax 16-50 has SDM!!!" To which I would reply "ADVANTAGE TOKINA!!"

I have not had great luck with Pentax quality control. I see no point in paying a $450-$550 premium to get a lens with the same optical formula, and that is no better made (and may be worse). The price differences are far too great.

How many people would buy the Pentax lenses at these prices if they could buy the very-similar Tokina lenses for a fraction of the price? If you wanted both of these lenses you could buy the Nikon versions and use the savings to get a "free" body!

Dan

People buy on price, brand, and friend's recommendations. Third party lenses (and I have 3 Tamron's) are a poor substitute for a DSLR camera system to thrive. Better to have the Zeiss/Fuji or Leica/Panasonic arrangement.

Pentax will get the market message very quickly when sales fall off a cliff.

Since they moved decision making across the Pacific, they have only themselves to blame. The B&H and Adorama guys are probably snickering already.

---

Last edited by Aristophanes; 05-03-2013 at 11:23 AM.

[joe.penn]

This is a fair point, and some of your comparisons make sense, but perhaps the best approach is compare lenses with the same optical design. Some of the best Pentax zoom lenses are available for Nikon and Canon via the Tokina "Pro" series, which developed these lenses jointly with Pentax. Let's say you want a wide-angle zoom with the performance of the DA12-24 or the DA*16-50. Let's compare the Pentax to the Nikon-mount options (all B&H):

Pentax SMCP-DA 12-24mm f/4 ED AL (IF) $897
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124 AF Pro DX II Lens $449



Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM $1297
Tokina AT-X 16-50mm f/2.8 Pro FX $749

The Tokina lenses are pro-grade lenses with metal bodies. There are very well made. But, some may say, "the Pentax versions have better coatings!!" I would say that there's not much evidence of a significant difference, as Tokina's coatings are very good. But, some may add, "The Pentax 16-50 has SDM!!!" To which I would reply "ADVANTAGE TOKINA!!"

I have not had great luck with Pentax quality control. I see no point in paying a $450-$550 premium to get a lens with the same optical formula, and that is no better made (and may be worse). The price differences are far too great.

How many people would buy the Pentax lenses at these prices if they could buy the very-similar Tokina lenses for a fraction of the price? If you wanted both of these lenses you could buy the Nikon versions and use the savings to get a "free" body!

Dan

Two of my first lens purchases for my Nikon telephoto system was the Sigma 300 2.8 DG and the Sigma 100-300 DG.
I purchased both of them used, the 300 2.8 for $1,600 and the 100-300 for $500'something - the cheapest used 300 2.8 in Pentax I have seen is $2,200 and the 100-300 i have seen go for $1,100 - those savings from those two lenses bought me a D7100...

[joe.penn]

People buy on price, brand, and friend's recommendations. Third party lenses (and I have 3 Tamron's) are a poor substitute for a DSLR camera system to thrive. Better to have the Zeiss/Fuji or Leica/Panasonic arrangement.

Pentax will get the market message very quickly when sales fall off a cliff.

since they moved decision making across the Pacific, they have only themselves to blame. The B&H and Adorama guys are probably snickering already.

Honestly, that is one of the funniest things I have seen posted on here, the poor substitution part, it's funny because you added you have 3 tamrons, lmao, no wonder, maybe those are poor substitutions for you. How can a 3rd party lens be a poor substitution when a 3rd party company has made some of the best glass for pentax?

[Docrwm]

Honestly, that is one of the funniest things I have seen posted on here, the poor substitution part, it's funny because you added you have 3 tamrons, lmao, no wonder, maybe those are poor substitutions for you. How can a 3rd party lens be a poor substitution when a 3rd party company has made some of the best glass for pentax?

Gotta agree with you there, Tamron makes some outstanding glass - period. Also, if you want a 70-200/2.8 for K mount for sports you are SOL if you want a Pentax lens new. Pentax keeps going to Tamron to make lenses for them both the 18-250 and newer 18-270 for example.

[Rondec]

This is a fair point, and some of your comparisons make sense, but perhaps the best approach is compare lenses with the same optical design. Some of the best Pentax zoom lenses are available for Nikon and Canon via the Tokina "Pro" series, which developed these lenses jointly with Pentax. Let's say you want a wide-angle zoom with the performance of the DA12-24 or the DA*16-50. Let's compare the Pentax to the Nikon-mount options (all B&H):

Pentax SMCP-DA 12-24mm f/4 ED AL (IF) $897
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124 AF Pro DX II Lens $449

Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM $1297
Tokina AT-X 16-50mm f/2.8 Pro FX $749

The Tokina lenses are pro-grade lenses with metal bodies. There are very well made. But, some may say, "the Pentax versions have better coatings!!" I would say that there's not much evidence of a significant difference, as Tokina's coatings are very good. But, some may add, "The Pentax 16-50 has SDM!!!" To which I would reply "ADVANTAGE TOKINA!!"

I have not had great luck with Pentax quality control. I see no point in paying a $450-$550 premium to get a lens with the same optical formula, and that is no better made (and may be worse). The price differences are far too great.

How many people would buy the Pentax lenses at these prices if they could buy the very-similar Tokina lenses for a fraction of the price? If you wanted both of these lenses you could buy the Nikon versions and use the savings to get a "free" body!

Dan

Honestly, there is not much point in comparing a third party glass makers options to the price of a glass maker making lenses for their own cameras. Tokina has to price their lenses less than comparable Nikon/Canon/Pentax options.

I do think that Pentax's lenses are over priced at this point, but Sigma/Tamron/Tokina glass will be priced lower than brand name lenses, even if they are of equivalent quality.

[Aristophanes]

Honestly, that is one of the funniest things I have seen posted on here, the poor substitution part, it's funny because you added you have 3 tamrons, lmao, no wonder, maybe those are poor substitutions for you. How can a 3rd party lens be a poor substitution when a 3rd party company has made some of the best glass for pentax?

Because it is Pentax getting a customer into their lens mount, and then losing after market sales.

I have the 17-50/2.8 and 90 Macro (and an older 28-105 which is not useful to compare because I use it on a film camera mostly).

The 90 Macro is a bargain and Pentax only has the 100 WR. So for Pentax they've deliberately chosen the high-end path. they probably sell 20%of what Tamron might, but make more profit as a result, and free up their assembly line for other tasks when needed. Win Win.

The 17-50 was on sale and faster than the 16-45 f/4. A real toss-up, frankly. Price and the faster stop got me. If my PP was iPhoto and not the more robust Aperture, I'd probably go for the warmer Pentax IQ at about 25% less. I should also add that I almost only use my 17-50 indoors. Outdoors I still am more likely to take the 18-55 kit lens because, honestly, it takes fantastic photos.

My point is that Pentax is not making it more difficult than other brands. But within the Pentax ecosystem they make erratic choices. The price of the DA 16-50 is ridiculous. I can get a whole Nikon D7100 with 18-105VR for the same.

Take the Pentax 18-135. Price that about 10% higher than the competition 18-135's and market the WR. Is it worth it? Maybe not in historic terms but in the now compared to the competition...sure. I wish Pentax would get some consistency and map things out. The pieces are all there, even when FF comes. I think a lot of the average pricing is not really in their control if they want to stay profitable. We know this because the competition is doing similar. But markets correct because people stop buying. Hopefully Pentax will pick up that market signal earlier and add value (WR) and drop costs (sub-35mm XS lens and something above 50mm) and for Pete's sake, please WR the 55-300 already! If the prices have to be where they are then add value where you've done so before.

And gets some tethering and update the flash system while you're at it. Low hanging fruit. Rant over.

[IchabodCrane]

I stopped at page 3 when I realized this thread is 15 pages long so if this has been brought up already, I apologize.

Quite possibly Pentax has received many complaints from non-USA retailers about losing too many sales to USA retailers willing to ship internationally. Maybe Pentax is changing USA prices to discourage this and shore up their retailer network around the world.

[incidentflux]

I stopped at page 3 when I realized this thread is 15 pages long so if this has been brought up already, I apologize.

Quite possibly Pentax has received many complaints from non-USA retailers about losing too many sales to USA retailers willing to ship internationally. Maybe Pentax is changing USA prices to discourage this and shore up their retailer network around the world.

Most stuff is cheaper in the US. I pay NY tax plus shipping to the UAE on some stuff and it's still cheaper. Not just camera gear. Mostly because of Amazon US.

We have high mark up European prices thrust upon us, plus local markups. People are now wising up buying from Amazon and using services like shopandship.com.

[Aristophanes]

I stopped at page 3 when I realized this thread is 15 pages long so if this has been brought up already, I apologize.

Quite possibly Pentax has received many complaints from non-USA retailers about losing too many sales to USA retailers willing to ship internationally. Maybe Pentax is changing USA prices to discourage this and shore up their retailer network around the world.

How do you stop Amazon and US anti-trust laws.

You don't.

As I said earlier, this is like plugging a dike with a finger. It will collapse on itself. The worldwide trend is, that if if you put your product into a distribution channel, you lose control of pricing. A lot like in supermarkets. Cameras are becoming commodities.

Apple saw this coming and opened their own dominant stores, B&M, online, and iTunes. That's not really an option for camera makers. That's why we're seeing more price squeezes on lenses than bodies.

[Dan]

... I do think that Pentax's lenses are over priced at this point, but Sigma/Tamron/Tokina glass will be priced lower than brand name lenses, even if they are of equivalent quality.

We agree on both points. I am not suggesting that the Pentax lenses should be as inexpensive as the optically similar Tokina lenses. My point is simply that the difference has become far too great. If the Tokina lenses were available for the Pentax mount I would buy the Pentax version of the 12-24, if the price difference were not too large. But there is a limit to what I am willing to pay for the Pentax brand, and that limit is far less than $500. As for the 16-50, I would buy the Tokina version even if it were priced the same, simply to avoid the SDM. (But that is another issue.) Note that I am not comparing third-party lenses that simply share the same focal length. I am comparing lenses with the same optical design.

Dan

[Biro]

Gotta agree with you there, Tamron makes some outstanding glass - period. Also, if you want a 70-200/2.8 for K mount for sports you are SOL if you want a Pentax lens new. Pentax keeps going to Tamron to make lenses for them both the 18-250 and newer 18-270 for example.

And let's hope that Pentax never asks Tamron to build a DA 70-200 for them. Otherwise, the Tamron-branded glass in Pentax mount will disappear and the DA version will be twice the price.

[Rondec]

We agree on both points. I am not suggesting that the Pentax lenses should be as inexpensive as the optically similar Tokina lenses. My point is simply that the difference has become far too great. If the Tokina lenses were available for the Pentax mount I would buy the Pentax version of the 12-24, if the price difference were not too large. But there is a limit to what I am willing to pay for the Pentax brand, and that limit is far less than $500. As for the 16-50, I would buy the Tokina version even if it were priced the same, simply to avoid the SDM. (But that is another issue.) Note that I am not comparing third-party lenses that simply share the same focal length. I am comparing lenses with the same optical design.

Dan

Tokina will never be able to release lenses that Pentax has licensed the optical fomulas to Tokina in a k mount version. That would be all of the lenses with the same optical formula except for the DA 12-24. Choosing between the 16-50 of Tokina and Pentax, I would either choose Pentax or Sigma's 17-50. The main selling point to me of the 16-50 was the sealing and barring that, Sigma and Tamron's options are probably the better choices...