[MMVIII]

...
Well guess what - Canon has re-vamped those lenses 2 or 3 times since then. The used market on the OLD (10 year old) equipment continues to fall while the NEW and REDESIGNED lenses see price increases.

It seems like Pentax feels entitled to skip the whole "new release" step in product marketing and they are happy to just jack the prices on their old stuff while pretending that the new expensive prices reflect the same modern advancement as the competition.

You may be right, but on the other hand, Pentax was not in the need to bring out new versions of the lenses with IS, because this is done on sensor-basis. That's may be considered as one of the plusses of the system...
The price hikes seem harsh and bold anyway, but the good thing is for all of us, who have already bought the needed lenses this may be also seen as a good thing as the value of the lenses stays high also on the second hand market for resellers.

[ElJamoquio]

You may be right, but on the other hand, Pentax was not in the need to bring out new versions of the lenses with IS, because this is done on sensor-basis. That's may be considered as one of the plusses of the system...

I didn't mind spending extra money on the K-5, compared to the D7000 - because I'd only have to buy stabilization once.

Now I have to pay for it on the lenses, too.

[Tonto]

I didn't mind spending extra money on the K-5, compared to the D7000 - because I'd only have to buy stabilization once.

Now I have to pay for it on the lenses, too.

This is a good point, Pentax lenses should always be priced below their IS counterparts, seems a bit pointless otherwise.

[24X36NOW]

LOL - Now Pentax seems to be working hard to turn off the last bastion of fervent supporters - the Cheapskates.

[jay_akita]

No comparison. The Nikon's you mention are plastic fantastics. I've had the 28mm, 50mm and the 85 mm ones. According to Ken Rockwell, Nikon has gone to a lead free solder in the manufacture of these lenses. The solder is known to deteriorate after 10 years or so making them unfixable/unusable. We will see how many happy Nikon customers there will be when that occurs. Resale value a few years down the road will be nil.

Do lenses not have to comply to ROHS in the EU? Seems unlikely but otherwise every lens sold by every manufacturer should be using lead free solder unless there's some loophole for lenses? ROHS compliant printed circuit board assemblies are the norm nowadays, as are components. Typically electronics manufacturers standardize a Bill Of Materials so they can be built on one line and sold to every market around the world. It's hard to imagine any camera manufacturer having separate manufacturing processes for countries that require ROHS and countries that don't, especially given that the legwork for a ROHS compliant lens would have to be done for the EU anyway.

Then again, any time I've made the mistake of clicking a link directing me to Ken Rockwell's site, I feel like my brain has been the victim of lead poisoning so who knows

[ElJamoquio]

Do lenses not have to comply to ROHS in the EU?

Yes...

[wildimages]

24X36NOW said


LOL - Now Pentax seems to be working hard to turn off the last bastion of fervent supporters - the Cheapskates

One of the key benefits of in body shake reduction is that you only have to pay for it once. That should make the lenses less expensive than their VR or IS compatible counterparts shouldn't it? It has nothing to do with being cheap, but rather understanding the VALUE of the SR system. Once lens prices become comparable between the two types of lenses (VR/IS and Non VR/IS) that benefit is negated, when you would think, it would be exploited by Pentax.

Bossa said

Pentax are supposed to be releasing a AF converter later this year aren't they?

It, like other things, is on the road map, but instead of releasing a simple TC, which might have increased sales of the DA*300, (which I agree is a stellar lens) but would have also probably sold thousands of copies, they release a mediocre 560mm lens which they don't plan on selling a lot of. We really needed the TC more than we needed a 560mm lens that is out of reach of most Pentax shooters.

For a bird shooter, with the spring migration in full swing, what good does a TC that is still on the road map do for you? This is the question I had to ask myself. I wanted something better than the Sigma 150 500 I had and sold, and somewhat less than the $7,000 bucks or $5,000 bucks Pentax and Sigma are asking for their 500mm lenses. I'm not a pro, and I'm not going to recoup the cost of a long lens by selling photos, so I have to be able to justify the cost to value. $1800 bucks is a lot easier to swallow than $7000 or even $5000.

In the long run though, I suppose that does make me a cheapskate............

[cali92rs]

For a bird shooter, with the spring migration in full swing, what good does a TC that is still on the road map do for you?

The mantra around here is, "be patient"...which is silly to me when other options exist right now which fit the bill.

[Clavius]

The mantra around here is, "be patient"...which is silly to me when other options exist right now which fit the bill.

So true! Patience is extremely overrated. Life is to short to be patient.

[monochrome]

So true! Patience is extremely overrated. Life is to short to be patient.

Therein lies the entire risk to Pentax's future. (Damn you, Hoya).

[Clavius]

Therein lies the entire risk to Pentax's future. (Damn you, Hoya).

They're not really "back from the dead" now under their new boss either. At least, I don't find Pentax to be overly active nowadays. It looks more and more like that new boss just wanted to extent their own product line-up, rather then grow the brand that they bought.

[IchabodCrane]

They're not really "back from the dead" now under their new boss either. At least, I don't find Pentax to be overly active nowadays. It looks more and more like that new boss just wanted to extent their own product line-up, rather then grow the brand that they bought.

I think it's still too early to make that conclusion. If by the end of this year we don't see signs of some change then maybe you're right at that point.

[ElJamoquio]

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for another year, myself. Sometimes it takes a while to hire on people to support new products.

[monochrome]

At some point one has to make a choice to believe or not believe what is said directly to one's face. (Well, on the internet it it is more to one's monitor, but you get my drift). I believe Ricoh believes there is room for a third major full-line camera brand and it will be Pentax in the intermediate term. I believe #1 in 20 years is a meaningful Vision if foundational steps are taken today, but the time horizon is so long and future events so indeterminate that no one can really know if such is even possible.

I believe Pentax is attempting to earn access to some of Ricoh's capital, especially PRAC, but the task is beyond challenging - it is daunting. They will try. Success depends on execution.

[Rondec]

They're not really "back from the dead" now under their new boss either. At least, I don't find Pentax to be overly active nowadays. It looks more and more like that new boss just wanted to extent their own product line-up, rather then grow the brand that they bought.

I'm going to say that I think the pipe line was pretty much dead under Hoya. You can tell based on the releases that Ricoh was able to clear on their acquisition of the company. The 560mm, the K-01, a new Q. Lots of colors. The only good thing as far as I can tell that Hoya was working on was the K30.

I don't see what the point of Ricoh buying Pentax was, if it wasn't for the k mount and SLR technology. It is just figuring out a coherent game plan, including a map of future bodies, new lenses and then designing them takes a little while.

I wish that there was more indication of what they are working, but it definitely takes quite awhile to get a pipe line of new products in line. It certainly isn't an excuse, but I still think there probably good things (may be pretty expensive) coming the end of the year.