Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-02-2017, 05:19 PM   #61
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Iloilo City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,212
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
What do you mean "we"?

My wife and I gave away my Sigma 18-250 and there is the Pentax rebranded Tamron. These types of lenses are available for those who want one. What happened? You ask. My wife and I shot side by side, an endangered Eastern red Wolf. The subject of the pictures was practically identical, but the 60-250 had much smoother out of focus areas. She never used the lens again except on one lens outings and eventually gave it away.

The thing is, in 35 years spending on average 3 weeks a year in the park, I've had one opportunity to photograph an Eastern Red Wolf. Tess realized because she was using her superzoom, her images weren't as good as they could have been. That bothers her to this day.

There's hardly any difference between 16-300 and 18-270 (which is licensed and available. If you want a superzoom, buy what's available. Whining about what isn't available get's you no where. And in terms of convincing us you're serious, if you don't own the 18-270, and feel you need to upgrade, well, you haven't tried what's available so how do we know you'd really like what isn't. Are we supposed to believe adding an extra 32 mm in focal length is going to be the difference between you buying and not buying? Buy what's available find out whether you like the super zooms or not. Then complain. I'll take you more seriously.

The new superzoom are only marginally better than the ones that came before them. Definitely not enough better my Tess would be happy with one... once burned...

My response to the thread title would be "Any news on you buying a Sigma 18-250, a Pentax 18-270 or any other superzoom that would convince us you're serious about even wanting a super zoom." After all there are some superzoom available. If you want one buy one, Behaving like a 5 year old in a supermarket pointing and saying "I have to have that one I don't want those other ones." doesn't get you anywhere. Life is too short for such nonsense. Get on with it.
I'm not whining Normhead, nor am I arguing that the image quality of the 60-250 is much much much much better than the Tamron 16-300. Like some of us here, at times we need a zoom that can accommodate things at one go. These are times when we don't care if the image quality doesn't have to be as stunning as the 60-250. But mind you, I saw his pictures and the Tamron produced very good results. I don't have an 18-270 as I read the feedback and this lens is not at par with the feedback of the Tamron and the Pentax is not WR. The Tamron 16-300 is moisture resistant. To me, that is important as I live in a country where it rains a lot and humidity is high. If you've tried it on the D7200 the AF is really really good. I haven't tried the new 55-300 PLM but my 55-300 WR is no match to it. I've also seen the photos which he took using the Tamron 150-600 and they were also very very good. Of course Pentax is the first choice before going to other brands. However, Pentax does not offer what some of us are looking for and it's available in Tamron and Sigma. A lot of us here would like to have some choices and, if they are available in the k-mount, it would be great.

09-02-2017, 07:22 PM   #62
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,532
QuoteQuote:
I'm not whining Normhead
,

Your enthusiasm is applaudable, but your mix mash of assertions is pretty much so full of holes it's impossible to make sense of it. What camera are you comparing to a D7200? You're surprised a $400 lens isn't better than a $1000 lens? You think the images of the 150-600 were very good, I might not think that, I prefer not to rely on others opinions for that kind of information.

QuoteOriginally posted by totsmuyco Quote
Pentax does not offer what some of us are looking for and it's available in Tamron and Sigma. A lot of us here would like to have some choices and, if they are available in the k-mount, it would be great.
Pentax makes a lot of stuff others don't make too. Lots of people would like some of the choices Pentax offers. Life is cruel that way. People , Pentax users and non-Pentax users alike can't have exactly what they want, so they blame someone, or claim someone should do something because it's what they want.

Some people call that whining.

Last edited by normhead; 09-02-2017 at 07:28 PM.
09-02-2017, 08:58 PM   #63
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,138
QuoteOriginally posted by totsmuyco Quote
I don't have an 18-270 as I read the feedback and this lens is not at par with the feedback of the Tamron and the Pentax is not WR.
The truth is that non of those super zoom is good across the whole range. They are good at the wide end and get worse and worse with increasing focal length. I've owned and used the 18-250 for many years on a K200D, and I've done comparisons between the 18-200, 18-250, 18-270. @200mm there are about the same, and beyond 200mm it gets worse. Versatility is great, but colors and contrast aren't great, I sold my 18-250 when I got the K3 because the IQ of the 18-250 did not match the IQ if the K3. If those superzooms were that good there would be no market for other zooms and that's not the case. Tamron recently announced the 18-400, I was intrigued by the advertisements. I checked the review, the review were quite good.... then I went on amazon reading customer reviews and it did not get a lot of stars, people saying it's not sharp at all...a number of people returned the lens. They manage to sell those lenses to entry level users who think that after getting a superzoom they won't need another lens.

QuoteOriginally posted by totsmuyco Quote
I haven't tried the new 55-300 PLM but my 55-300 WR is no match to it.
So what? You haven't tried, you can't conclude anything. From the photos I've seen from the 55-300 WR, it beats all super zooms at the same focal length.

QuoteOriginally posted by totsmuyco Quote
Pentax does not offer what some of us are looking for and it's available in Tamron and Sigma.
Canon,Nikon and Pentax don't offer 150-600 lenses, nor superzooms. The reason is because Tamron and Sigma historically target low budget customers, while Canon, Nikon and Pentax tend to make premium products. If you want Pentax to do the job of Tamron and Sigma, that's not going to happen. Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji don't do it, why should Pentax do it? When Pentax re-branded some lenses from Tamron, people were whining again.

Regarding superzooms, including the latest models, the problem is that they don't match the resolution of new DSLR cameras, with older DSLR like K100D, K10 , image quality was Ok. You could switch to Canikon to get the cheapo zoom from Tamron and Sigma, but it's not wise decision because you waste the money you wanted to save. If you need a good but not large and relatively cheap tele zoom, the 55-300 PLM is a very good choice for use with newer camera sensors, without having to break the bank and without having to completely reconsider your Pentax mount setup.

Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-02-2017 at 09:11 PM.
09-02-2017, 10:57 PM   #64
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Iloilo City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,212
I'm not trying to start an argument here. LOL. I can't seem to understand some of you guys. When someone says they've tried other brands or is looking at other brands you think that we're putting down Pentax. I know I'm not.It's not a crime to like or try other stuffs and I wouldn't be using Pentax if I didn't like it. And oh yes I haven't brought my camera at that time but, I know how my 55-300 WR focuses. And as far as I'm concerned it ain't as fast as that Tamron.

@Normhead. I'm using the K-5II and the K-3II. I just happened to try out his D7200 with his lenses. Again to be honest, I'm not putting down Pentax, it was quite good and has a much better AF than my K-3II with all my lenses.

09-03-2017, 12:52 AM   #65
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,454
QuoteOriginally posted by totsmuyco Quote
I'm not trying to start an argument here. LOL. I can't seem to understand some of you guys. When someone says they've tried other brands or is looking at other brands you think that we're putting down Pentax. I know I'm not.It's not a crime to like or try other stuffs and I wouldn't be using Pentax if I didn't like it. And oh yes I haven't brought my camera at that time but, I know how my 55-300 WR focuses. And as far as I'm concerned it ain't as fast as that Tamron.

@Normhead. I'm using the K-5II and the K-3II. I just happened to try out his D7200 with his lenses. Again to be honest, I'm not putting down Pentax, it was quite good and has a much better AF than my K-3II with all my lenses.
It is sometimes true but in this case I don't think so. 18-250 or 16-300, c'mon. Then someone will complain because there's no 15-310 or no 14-320.
Then, D7200 AF is superior and we know it. No need to remind us every 2 posts. So in the end we have:
* asking for 16-300 as we know ther's very little chance of this
* saying D7200 AF is better and we already all know that.

In the end, useless. But I would not qualify that post as being troll or whatever (not a a single such post).
I would have been less harsh than Normhead, personally.
09-03-2017, 06:44 AM   #66
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,532
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
It is sometimes true but in this case I don't think so. 18-250 or 16-300, c'mon. Then someone will complain because there's no 15-310 or no 14-320.
Then, D7200 AF is superior and we know it. No need to remind us every 2 posts. So in the end we have:
* asking for 16-300 as we know ther's very little chance of this
* saying D7200 AF is better and we already all know that.

In the end, useless. But I would not qualify that post as being troll or whatever (not a a single such post).
I would have been less harsh than Normhead, personally.
I once ran a thread, on the superiority of Pentax AF based on measurements at Imaging Resources.. The howls of indignation from the unbelievers was loud and swift. Then, when they couldn't refute the stats, they made up reasons why they were irrelevant.

This litany of complaints about Pentax AF (most based on entry model Pentax's being compared to higher priced newer Nikon and Canon product) sells a lot of cameras for Nikon and Canon.Then folks complain because Pentax doesn't have the market share to attract 3rd party support.

You folks are your own worst enemy.

The funny thing about this is, out in the field, there is simply no apparent advantage to using similarly priced Nikon and Canon gear, and often , I get better images than people using equipment 5x as expensive as mine. I don't whine because i achieve the results I want with Pentax gear. It's sad the rest of you feel the need to pump up other brands, but then for me it;'s about the images. Not the shiny , glittery bits.

The fact is, y'all have been conned. The goal of Nikon marketing, is to make sure everyone always talks about them, preferably in a positive sense. . In that sense, these are all troll threads in support of Nikon marketing. I really dislike folks supporting Nikon and Canon marketing. It's all a bunch of misrepresentation, skewed perspectives and half truths. You can spout it, but i don't have to agree with it, or like it.

The marketing department of these companies will try and get you to believe what they are best at is what it really important. When in fact, something like super fast AF is very rarely important. And for many of us things like in body shake reduction, etc. are much more important. If you don't have that, I really don't care how fast your AF is It could be instant, I don't care, I don't need that. I can wait an extra .02 of a second for my camera to focus. That makes absolutely no difference to 99.9% of my shooting, and certainly doesn't slow me down any in terms of getting my shoots done. If I shoot 1000 images that will be an extra 10 seconds waiting for my "slow" AF, and that is if i don't gain the time back with Pentax's superior focus confirmation.

I swear, the goal of way too many posters on this forum is to tell people why they should buy some other camera besides a Pentax. Most of it is nonsense. The only reason for switching from Pentax is, you bought into a system that doesn't suit your needs because you were trying to buy something cheaper than what you needed. It's simple. There are systems better than Pentax, but none offer the same value for the upper money. If you tried to cheap out and go for less than what you needed, that's not on Pentax. That's on you.

And if you go around pimping other people's cameras, then you certainly have no right to complain about the consequences of Pentax's lack of market share. Sigma and Tamron ditched Pentax, because of people like you.

Last edited by normhead; 09-03-2017 at 07:43 AM.
09-03-2017, 01:52 PM   #67
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 1,578
It's correct that many of us are probably here and perhaps started with Pentax digital because of value for the money. However if you look at the situation when many of us started with digital, say the mid-2000s, I don't think it was obvious how things like Pentax AF or (to bring up more sore points with some users) video or flash technology would evolve vs. the competition.

Some of us have become somewhat discouraged by the deterioration in the availability of 3rd party lenses. maybe partly because that does impact the value proposition, and partly because we get stuck with older technology or no product available at all in certain categories. Since Tamron has done other OEM lenses for Pentax I think having the new Tamron zooms available as Pentax models, albeit at a higher price, isn't an unreasonable request. I don't think it would be that huge a task for Pentax to replace the 18-270 with what is basically an improved alternative, and then make the 18-400 available. I don't see the disadvantage to Tamron or Pentax to doing that. In fact I don't see why Pentax shouldn't offer nearly every Tamron , at least that doesn't directly compete with a native Pentax lens. Yes, some of us would still gripe, but more people might choose (or not jump ship from) Pentax if one obstacle (perceived or otherwise) was partially removed, especially if we still find good value in bodies. And Pentax would surely benefit from a larger ecosystem.
09-03-2017, 03:03 PM   #68
bxf
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,177
QuoteOriginally posted by tibbitts Quote
I don't think it would be that huge a task for Pentax to replace the 18-270 with what is basically an improved alternative, and then make the 18-400 available. I don't see the disadvantage to Tamron or Pentax to doing that.
Tamron and Sigma have made some excellent lenses over the years, and continue to do so. However, as stated previously, part of their market consists of less demanding customers, and Nikon, Canon, Pentax do not cater much to that market. For the most part, C/N/P standards do not go as low as those of SIgma and Tamron.

09-03-2017, 05:56 PM   #69
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 1,578
QuoteOriginally posted by bxf Quote
Tamron and Sigma have made some excellent lenses over the years, and continue to do so. However, as stated previously, part of their market consists of less demanding customers, and Nikon, Canon, Pentax do not cater much to that market. For the most part, C/N/P standards do not go as low as those of SIgma and Tamron.
I don't understand your point. As far as I know a number of Pentax lenses, current and past, have been Tamron-designed and Tamron-manufactured lenses that are/were rebadged as being Pentax lenses. I'm not even suggesting Tamron go off on its own and resume making their own branded lenses for Pentax, I'm suggesting that Pentax rebadge newer Tamron lenses (and regrettably yes, charge more for them.) It's not an ideal situation but provides some options to Pentax owners and brings newer technology to Pentax than the company can bring on its own. While some of us might not buy a 16-300mm, Pentax is already selling the older 18-270mm design.
09-03-2017, 06:29 PM   #70
bxf
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,177
I'm suggesting that, possibly with very few exceptions, superzooms do not meet IQ criteria expected from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta.

This is not meant to imply that other lenses (i.e. not superzooms) from Sigma and Tamron do not necessarily qualify.
09-03-2017, 06:46 PM   #71
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,192
QuoteOriginally posted by tibbitts Quote
I don't understand your point. As far as I know a number of Pentax lenses, current and past, have been Tamron-designed and Tamron-manufactured lenses that are/were rebadged as being Pentax lenses. I'm not even suggesting Tamron go off on its own and resume making their own branded lenses for Pentax, I'm suggesting that Pentax rebadge newer Tamron lenses (and regrettably yes, charge more for them.) It's not an ideal situation but provides some options to Pentax owners and brings newer technology to Pentax than the company can bring on its own. While some of us might not buy a 16-300mm, Pentax is already selling the older 18-270mm design.
I wouldn't dare touch a superzoom lens again. But I get your point you've been making on this page and I agree.. what you have said has been the case in my situation. I don't have the 30 year history with the brand... or even in photography. I started out in 2010. So I don't have the emotional baggage some do or the (lowered?) expectations of old ways of photography clouding my thinking. I could have bought into any crop system. After researching online I got the impression that Pentax was just cheaper to own while providing a ton of features not seen anywhere else.... definitely not for the money. And, at the time, I was unsure if I wanted to spend a ton in photography.

Around 2013 lens prices went way UP so the cost factor began to fade. Then in 2015 I noticed 3rd parties shying away from Pentax in general. So choice isn't nearly as numerous as it has been. Today we have Sony and Olympus with 5 axis IBIS, I've seen Nikon bodies caked in mud then rinsed off without a problem so WR doesn't seem to be an issue (at least on higher end). I remember when the K-5 was released it was incredible. It still is a strong performer in IQ. Yet all brands have solid IQ today. Autofocus performance seems to be improving at logarithmic levels for Canikony while for Pentax it is more a linear progression.

The point being, unless something drastically changes suddenly, I'm not sure Pentax has as defined a niche as it has had only 4 or 5 years ago. And, for the money, there are more options today than there ever have been (esp if you are OK with used/refurb hardware). I'm not sure I'd go with Pentax today if I was just starting out. I think a K-70 might look appealing and the DA lineup is nice. Pentax do compete. But, on the other hand, there are a number of other kits out there today in the same price band that also look appealing.
09-04-2017, 10:49 AM   #72
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 1,578
QuoteOriginally posted by bxf Quote
I'm suggesting that, possibly with very few exceptions, superzooms do not meet IQ criteria expected from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta.

This is not meant to imply that other lenses (i.e. not superzooms) from Sigma and Tamron do not necessarily qualify.
Since Pentax has for a while and continues to sell a variety of Tamron lenses, including "superzooms" (and what were superzooms in their day) with the name Pentax on them, a variety of those have apparently met Pentax's standards over the years. And Nikon (and Canon and Sony, if you still count 18-200mm at least) sell their own superzooms with their own names on them, so by definition superzooms meet their IQ standards too. This has been going on for a while. You might recall the original 43-86mm Nikkor - arguably a superzoom in its day. I think it would be hard to argue that Nikon has higher IQ criteria than... anybody, based on that lens. :-)

---------- Post added 09-04-2017 at 10:59 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
I wouldn't dare touch a superzoom lens again. But I get your point you've been making on this page and I agree.. what you have said has been the case in my situation. I don't have the 30 year history with the brand... or even in photography. I started out in 2010. So I don't have the emotional baggage some do or the (lowered?) expectations of old ways of photography clouding my thinking. I could have bought into any crop system. After researching online I got the impression that Pentax was just cheaper to own while providing a ton of features not seen anywhere else.... definitely not for the money. And, at the time, I was unsure if I wanted to spend a ton in photography.

Around 2013 lens prices went way UP so the cost factor began to fade. Then in 2015 I noticed 3rd parties shying away from Pentax in general. So choice isn't nearly as numerous as it has been. Today we have Sony and Olympus with 5 axis IBIS, I've seen Nikon bodies caked in mud then rinsed off without a problem so WR doesn't seem to be an issue (at least on higher end). I remember when the K-5 was released it was incredible. It still is a strong performer in IQ. Yet all brands have solid IQ today. Autofocus performance seems to be improving at logarithmic levels for Canikony while for Pentax it is more a linear progression.

The point being, unless something drastically changes suddenly, I'm not sure Pentax has as defined a niche as it has had only 4 or 5 years ago. And, for the money, there are more options today than there ever have been (esp if you are OK with used/refurb hardware). I'm not sure I'd go with Pentax today if I was just starting out. I think a K-70 might look appealing and the DA lineup is nice. Pentax do compete. But, on the other hand, there are a number of other kits out there today in the same price band that also look appealing.
That was the exact situation with me when I started with Pentax digital, just a few years earlier (2007, k100 era.) I had owned Pentax in the Spotmatic era but didn't have any legacy lenses to be concerned with - I was interested in value and Pentax had some unique elements that nobody else did at the time. Pentax is still competitive but the 3rd party lens availability wasn't as bleak at the time, and some of the advantages have evolved away over the years. More choices in lenses would bring Pentax back closer to where it was, and I'm just saying that if the market alone won't support that, then Pentax rebranding is better than nothing.
09-04-2017, 11:04 AM   #73
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,138
QuoteOriginally posted by tibbitts Quote
I don't see the disadvantage to Tamron or Pentax to doing that.
If Tamron sells entry level lenses to Pentax, Pentax must resell them with a commercial margin compatible to what's expected by Ricoh in terms of profit margin. Ricoh would still need to sell Tamron glass at 1.5x the cost and I'm not sure if there is a market for cheaply built , mediocre quality lenses sold at the price of Pentax premium glass. Or Pentax would need to squeeze there profit margin in such way that they should make too many of such offers other it would completely shift downwards the financial ratios of the camera division.

---------- Post added 04-09-17 at 20:07 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by tibbitts Quote
a variety of those have apparently met Pentax's standards over the years
Only a few actually.
09-04-2017, 12:45 PM   #74
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 1,578
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
If Tamron sells entry level lenses to Pentax, Pentax must resell them with a commercial margin compatible to what's expected by Ricoh in terms of profit margin. Ricoh would still need to sell Tamron glass at 1.5x the cost and I'm not sure if there is a market for cheaply built , mediocre quality lenses sold at the price of Pentax premium glass. Or Pentax would need to squeeze there profit margin in such way that they should make too many of such offers other it would completely shift downwards the financial ratios of the camera division.

---------- Post added 04-09-17 at 20:07 ----------


Only a few actually.
I guess one of the cheaply built mediocre quality lenses is the FA 15-30mm for example, and apparently Pentax is accepting somewhat less than 1.5x for that. I'm just saying I don't understand the reason for not doing the same, maybe at a $200 price premium or whatever, for more lenses. The idea is to grow the ecosystem and remove an objection to entering the Pentax system. As much as some people here resent superzooms, we also periodically have posts advising not to change lenses in various environments, so we can't exactly claim that superzooms don't have a place. I suppose you can argue Pentax should limit its market to people willing to buy and carry three bodies and lenses around but I'm not sure that's a winning strategy.

When I bought into Pentax the 16-45 was a big factor for me due to the lack of affordable 16-whatever alternatives for other systems. Maybe some people feel the same way about superzooms that either have a lower-end or higher-end than what Pentax offers now, and I'm not sure the newer Tamrons don't outperform their older superzooms, so I don't see the harm in going that route. The objective is to grow the Pentax ecosystem and hope for a bigger pool of money eventually by not turning people off due to lack of a product when you can somewhat easily avoid it. It's not unlike the software industry where companies sometimes effectively subsidize competitors because they hope for an eventual positive impact by growing the acceptance for their own related products.

As for "only a few", if you mean superzooms the definition of them has changed over the years (and arguably superzoom lenses predate the use of the term), but in general there have been a lot of rebadged Tamrons and other 3rd-party-manufactured lenses in the Pentax lineup. No, not in screw-mount era that I know of, but subsequently.
09-04-2017, 10:27 PM   #75
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,454
Other than Tamron? Third party?
Which ones?
From memory, apart the FA100/3.5 1:2 from Cosina, I don't see. And not many AFAICT.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
account, bank, glass, iq, japan, lens, lenses, ltd, money, nikon, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, photography, profit, ricoh, shares, situation, sony, superzooms, tamron, tamron or pentax, time, trust
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any news on the DA* 16-85 zoom? LIJ Photographic Industry and Professionals 38 05-05-2014 10:22 PM
Any news on the AF360FGZ II? JJJPhoto Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 3 03-13-2013 04:05 AM
Any rumors/news on the price of the Pentax 560mm? Eric Seavey Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 10-18-2012 03:34 PM
Any more news on upcoming flash improvements? thigmo Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 5 01-17-2011 07:45 PM
Any news on the new DA★ primes? mattdm Pentax News and Rumors 91 09-05-2008 06:26 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:05 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top