[Rondec]

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.

I have never really like the super zooms. As biz-engineer says, they are usually better at the wide end and then get weaker on the long end, beyond which, the 300mm that is mentioned is only at infinity focus. When focused closer, they are quite a bit shorter than that. Probably the closest thing to a super-zoom that I would find acceptable would be the Pentax DA 16-85, which is a little more expensive, but seems to provide more consistent quality throughout the range.

Looking at the Tamron 15-30 it is 1099 on B and H, while the Pentax 15-30 is 1299.95. I have no idea if 200 is a reasonable mark up, but it didn't bother me too much when I purchased the lens.

I could see Pentax replacing the 18-270 with the 16-300 when their stock is gone of them, but probably not before. I think the way these rebadges work is Pentax purchases a certain number from Tamron and then assumes the risk of selling them. Historically they haven't really had more than one rebadged super zoom at a time and the reason is probably their concern that they would end up with unsold stock.

[Nicolas06]

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.

There no law and no physics restrictions that mean superzoom have to be of bad quality. But there price an size limitations. The Canon 28-300 L, is huge/heavy, is pretty expensive and perform pretty well. it may not beat a 70-200 f/2.8 but is solid lens. Notice that the price/size mean it doesn't targe the cheap low budget market at all.

There are superzoom for video that cost like 100K$ and theses thing offer great quality. We don't see them in photo because typically it is not worth for photographers to have a huge thing that need a motorized tripod to move and anyway most photographers do not have the money.

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.

Not really. Nikon does have a cheap super tele that goes to 500mm and that is quite cheap, good and immensively successfull.

And each of the manufacters best sales are their kitlens that perfectly match the low budget customers. Sigma and tamron did well make the lenses the manufacturers didn't want to make for a reason or another. So that's superzoom, cheap but great f/2.8 zooms, but also high end f/1.8 or f/2 zooms lenses or fast f/1.4 primes. They are challengers, doesn't mean they are not able to design great glass or that why they decide to do isn't interresting.

In a sense Pentax is exactly in the same positions for cameras. Challenger to Canikon and we still value them.

[biz-engineer]

Nikon does have a cheap super tele that goes to 500mm and that is quite cheap

is it a 16-500 ? humm i think it is 200-500, that's 2.5x.

---------- Post added 04-10-17 at 21:04 ----------

There no law and no physics restrictions that mean superzoom have to be of bad quality.

yes it's like everything, nothing impossible, only cost does not find any customer.

[Nicolas06]

is it a 16-500 ? humm i think it is 200-500, that's 2.5x

Who care? It sell well and isn't expensive. When you buy a 500mm this isn't to take landscapes with an UWA. Nobody has a 16-500 anyway.

---------- Post added 04-10-17 at 21:04 ----------

yes it's like everything, nothing impossible, only cost does not find any customer.

What you know from Canon the 28-300 doesn't find any customer? Or maybe their 30-300 2.95-3.7 T for 45K$ they made it just for the fun. Because nobody buys ? Or what maybe you find 3.7 T stop for the 300 is not fast enough ? They should have made it f/2.8 constant ? That's your issue ?

I don't think they are into philanthropy. They have several lenses like that, it must sell.

Sigma and tamron have 150-600, 18-300, 16-300 and many other it is because that sell. That also why these was various version of 50-500 and 150-500 before too. That's also true for their 300 f/2.8 or 800 f/5.6, low end, high end, they target markets... If Nikon has made a 200-500, that's the same too.

if we only have a few of theses, in particular the recent additions, including not much from Pentax it is because there isn't a big enough market in K-mount. There you are absolutely right.

Maybe people didn't know, but I agree that people still there and reading theses line have all the information into their hands. if they need something not available in K-mount and that's important to them, they know what to do.

if they stay, well this is maybe not that important.

And well if they ask for the impossible like a 30-300 f/2.8-4 for $500 and as light as a feather... well... They may wait for a long time.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-04-2017 at 04:54 PM.

[sculptor666]

????? (@thisistanaka) on Twitter

this guy's twitter feed has some info

[biz-engineer]

Who care? It sell well and isn't expensive. When you buy a 500mm this isn't to take landscapes with an UWA. Nobody has a 16-500 anyway.

The original post is about SUPER zooms with >10x focal length ration at sub $500 (ex. 16-300, 18-400 etc).
You jump in, take examples that don't match the post for the sake of arguing. I think your point is only looking for trouble here. Bye bye Nicolas.

[Nicolas06]

The original post is about SUPER zooms with >10x focal length ration at sub $500 (ex. 16-300, 18-400 etc).
You jump in, take examples that don't match the post for the sake of arguing. I think your point is only looking for trouble here. Bye bye Nicolas.

Some people were doing the old arguing that it is not possible to make super zoom that deliver and that there no need for us to have any, that there no market for that. This is all wrong and we all know it. That was my point

Now I agree with you, want one get to buy were it exist. There sigma 18-300 and tamron 16-300 for other mount if that important to you. They sell well, there a maket for that and they provide a compromize many are interrested in.

Don't want to do that neither and switch mount? Then stop complaining and do it. Or get a 18-270 or 18-55 + 55-300 in K-mount and stop complaining. or buy nothing and stop complaining. I think there were even a few 18-300 from sigma available.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-05-2017 at 01:37 AM.

[camyum]

I dont know, why people should stop complaining.
I would rather suggest them to put users on the ignore list, that always give you the same "stop complaining"-blabbering.

... wait ... done.

The Tamron 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 XR Di AF does the trick for me.
I know thats far away from 16 or 18mm at the wide end. But most customers wont care, since wideish photos always look a bit distorted.
And those who do care about great wide angle photos will carry a dedicated wide angle zoom DFA 15-30 f.i. (if not a prime actually)...

I have the tammy and I am quite satisfied... thats a nice walkaround lens.

Thing is I would love to see a modern version. Like the "Tamron 28-300 mm F/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD".
(sry for "complaining" so badly)


And no, I dont really care if it wears the Tamron badge or the PENTAX badge...
they could also print RICOH upon it... who cares, as long as it fits our needs.

I dont know who owns who and i actually dont care. What i know, is that in some recent Tamron survey, one was asked if he would own a PENTAX or at some point later if he would wish for a PENTAX K-Mount lens, which zoom range etc.

And AFAIK, some pentaxforums.com member made a call to all pentaxforum members to join the survey, and vote for some lens, but AFAIR ..
all the people behaved a bit envious or irrational and argued, that this wouldnt make any sense, and they would never do... bla bla. etc.
... As long as such behaviour is the "fundemental tone" here on PF... i think we are far away from becoming a bigger family.

Despite that I am convinced that RICOH-Imaging should work on a better AF and do a bit more advertising, and PENTAX cameras would sell like hotcake.(again)
...what would also end in having much more diversity and quantity in 3rd party lens choice.

[totsmuyco]

I dont know, why people should stop complaining.
I would rather suggest them to put users on the ignore list, that always give you the same "stop complaining"-blabbering.

... wait ... done.

The Tamron 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 XR Di AF does the trick for me.
I know thats far away from 16 or 18mm at the wide end. But most customers wont care, since wideish photos always look a bit distorted.
And those who do care about great wide angle photos will carry a dedicated wide angle zoom DFA 15-30 f.i. (if not a prime actually)...

I have the tammy and I am quite satisfied... thats a nice walkaround lens.

Thing is I would love to see a modern version. Like the "Tamron 28-300 mm F/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD".
(sry for "complaining" so badly)


And no, I dont really care if it wears the Tamron badge or the PENTAX badge...
they could also print RICOH upon it... who cares, as long as it fits our needs.

I dont know who owns who and i actually dont care. What i know, is that in some recent Tamron survey, one was asked if he would own a PENTAX or at some point later if he would wish for a PENTAX K-Mount lens, which zoom range etc.

And AFAIK, some pentaxforums.com member made a call to all pentaxforum members to join the survey, and vote for some lens, but AFAIR ..
all the people behaved a bit envious or irrational and argued, that this wouldnt make any sense, and they would never do... bla bla. etc.
... As long as such behaviour is the "fundemental tone" here on PF... i think we are far away from becoming a bigger family.

Despite that I am convinced that RICOH-Imaging should work on a better AF and do a bit more advertising, and PENTAX cameras would sell like hotcake.(again)
...what would also end in having much more diversity and quantity in 3rd party lens choice.

It is not a crime to like, buy and use 3rd party lenses. To me, I get the gears that fits my needs and of course it's something I like. I don't care what other people say.
3rd party manufacturers normally coexist with the.major brands. The way I see it is, some people avoid Pentax because there is no support from 3rd party manufacturers. As far they're concerned, they have no other options.
I also agree with you regarding AF. This is something that I have accepted when I bought into Pentax in 2014. The AF isn't at par with the other brands. I believe they need to have a major improvement in this area.

[normhead]

It is not a crime to like, buy and use 3rd party lenses. To me, I get the gears that fits my needs and of course it's something I like. I don't care what other people say.
3rd party manufacturers normally coexist with the.major brands. The way I see it is, some people avoid Pentax because there is no support from 3rd party manufacturers. As far they're concerned, they have no other options.
I also agree with you regarding AF. This is something that I have accepted when I bought into Pentax in 2014. The AF isn't at par with the other brands. I believe they need to have a major improvement in this area.

I'm quite happy with what I' have for the price I paid of it. If I ever want better AF I can pay more and get it.

[cfraz]

Don't want to do that neither and switch mount? Then stop complaining and do it. Or get a 18-270 or 18-55 + 55-300 in K-mount and stop complaining. or buy nothing and stop complaining. I think there were even a few 18-300 from sigma available.

For buying super zooms (or any photo gear), there's MasterCard.

But a rant about complaining by Nicolas06, priceless.

[camyum]

It is not a crime to like, buy and use 3rd party lenses. To me, I get the gears that fits my needs and of course it's something I like. I don't care what other people say.
3rd party manufacturers normally coexist with the.major brands. The way I see it is, some people avoid Pentax because there is no support from 3rd party manufacturers. As far they're concerned, they have no other options.
I also agree with you regarding AF. This is something that I have accepted when I bought into Pentax in 2014. The AF isn't at par with the other brands. I believe they need to have a major improvement in this area.

yes ... i also hope there will be improvement soon.

And the best way to achieve better AF or shorter improvement cycles in Pentax-AF is to NOT say its OK, and nearly en par with other makers.
(what is clearly wrong)

Thank you for being so honest, but still staying with the PENTAX system/brand.
I also bear that cross since i fell in love with the K-7 and K-5 design, and i sincerely hope they will come back to the KISS-directive they implemented in those cameras. ... And I just loved the handling of those cameras... they design felt so calm, reasonable and still had that analogue chic factor...
totally without the need for borrowing design-elements from fuji...
When i was photographing in London, people always asked what kind of camera that was and if it´s digital or still analogue because it just had that certain touch to it.
(despite all that K-5IIs was a real killer - when it came to IQ and crystal clear looking pics)

And its not that there would be no innovation at all on the PENTAX ship, actually I like the display design on the K-1 f.i. ... but all the other bells and whistles...
. I would exchange them for a better AF-system at any moment.

seems to be a bit off topic, but since it's alread written, I'll post it anyway.
- I am just so happy every time I find people who share the same PENTAX love and still try to be honest and dont pervert facts. thank you totsmuyco...

The Tamron 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 XR Di AF does the trick for me. I know thats far away from 16 or 18mm at the wide end. But most customers wont care, since wideish photos always look a bit distorted. And those who do care about great wide angle photos will carry a dedicated wide angle zoom DFA 15-30 f.i. (if not a prime actually)...

Glad to see that there is someone else who has this lens and isn't ashamed to admit to liking it!

[normhead]

I also agree with you regarding AF. This is something that I have accepted when I bought into Pentax in 2014. The AF isn't at par with the other brands. I believe they need to have a major improvement in this area.

Or, people have to learn technique. People put way to much stock in what AF can do for them and way to little value on what you have to know to make good sue of fast AF.

[bxf]

...The AF isn't at par with the other brands. I believe they need to have a major improvement in this area.

yes ... i also hope there will be improvement soon.

And the best way to achieve better AF or shorter improvement cycles in Pentax-AF is to NOT say its OK, and nearly en par with other makers.
(what is clearly wrong)...

OK, so it's agreed then: Pentax AF is what prevents people from taking good photos.

I knew it wasn't me!