[virusn3t]

Once again.. Who cares if the new K lenses are Tamron, Sigma, Pentax, Tokina, etc.. as long as are good lenses that deliveres great IQ and are well build IS OK. I still dont get why people worry if the new K lenses are branded or rebranded.

The problem is not the lens rebranded, is the higher price for a item much cheaper in his original "brand". Of course if Ricoh put WR, better construction, better AF motor and better coatings some increment can be tolerated

[RockvilleBob]

~$8500 IMHO

I would guess at least the price of the Canon and Nikon 600 f4 - over $12,000 USD. The camera is an add-on

[GlassJunkie]

I would guess at least the price of the Canon and Nikon 600 f4 - over $12,000 USD. The camera is an add-on

I was overly optimistic on the fact that Pentax has a 72% lower advertising budget or 36% lower SGA...

[monochrome]

Once again.. Who cares if the new K lenses are Tamron, Sigma, Pentax, Tokina, etc.. as long as are good lenses that deliveres great IQ and are well build IS OK. I still dont get why people worry if the new K lenses are branded or rebranded.

If you want a Tamron lens you should pay a Tamron price for a Tamron lens. If Pentax wants you to buy a premium Pentax-branded lens it should be a Pentax designed, Pentax spec'ed, Pentax ground and polished, Pentax coated and Pentax assembled lens. Then it will be a justifiable premium price.

A justifiable premium price leads to more profit for Pentax brand products, which can be reinvested into Ricoh Imaging to further expand the reach, capabilities and competitiveness of the Pentax brand products. We all want that, don't we?

Or did we think Hoya had the right idea?

[jatrax]

Once again.. Who cares if the new K lenses are Tamron, Sigma, Pentax, Tokina, etc.. as long as are good lenses that deliveres great IQ and are well build IS OK. I still dont get why people worry if the new K lenses are branded or rebranded.

So you go to a fancy restaurant and pay top price for dinner. But on the way out you pass the kitchen and see a stack of frozen dinner boxes. Was your dinner just a re-badged frozen meal? Hmmmmm

[kooks]

If you want a Tamron lens you should pay a Tamron price for a Tamron lens. If Pentax wants you to buy a premium Pentax-branded lens it should be a Pentax designed, Pentax spec'ed, Pentax ground and polished, Pentax coated and Pentax assembled lens. Then it will be a justifiable premium price.

well in that case it is totally acceptable to complain. because is the same product at totally different prices.. but if the prices arent that different I woulnd care if is a rebranded as long as the IQ is good. .. lets see what happens.. the good thing is that new lenses are coming and that is good for all.

[bxf]

If you want a Tamron lens you should pay a Tamron price for a Tamron lens. If Pentax wants you to buy a premium Pentax-branded lens it should be a Pentax designed, Pentax spec'ed, Pentax ground and polished, Pentax coated and Pentax assembled lens. Then it will be a justifiable premium price.

This sounds logical, and I don't disagree with the notion that Tamron lenses, rebadged or not, should sell at Tamron prices. However, at the same time the statement implies that all Tamron (or all third party?) lenses are inferior to all Pentax designed...assembled lenses. I'm sure such is not the case.

[kooks]

However, at the same time the statement implies that all Tamron (or all third party?) lenses are inferior to all Pentax designed...assembled lenses. I'm sure such is not the case.

I agree with that.. thats why i dont care that much about the brand as long as is a good lens that gives me the IQ that I want, just for example the Sigma art lenses are GREAT, lovely quality, well build, great image, and cost much less than the Canikons versions of that lenses.

[jatrax]

When you buy an OEM lens you generally expect to pay more. The perception is that the lens will be 'better'. This is not always the case but whether you know and accept it or not when you purchase an OEM lens you are also subsidizing the brand and perhaps the price of the body. I know all that, and accept it as the way things are. But if you take another company's product and slap your label on it and still charge me the OEM premium tax I don't appreciate it.

I do care about the brand, and I support that brand by buying OEM lenses instead of third party lenses that are less expensive, though the image quality might be very close.

[normhead]

I'd love to support Pentax, but when I went to Macro, they didn't have the 70mm FF macro I wanted. Sometimes Pentax's lens in-up doesn't anticipate what you might want next. I had no primes between 50 and 90, and the Pentax 100 was just very close to my Tamron 90. It's great to be brand loyal, as long as they make what you need. 70mm is my favourite portrayal length on APS-c.

[GlassJunkie]

If you want a Tamron lens you should pay a Tamron price for a Tamron lens. If Pentax wants you to buy a premium Pentax-branded lens it should be a Pentax designed, Pentax spec'ed, Pentax ground and polished, Pentax coated and Pentax assembled lens. Then it will be a justifiable premium price.

A justifiable premium price leads to more profit for Pentax brand products, which can be reinvested into Ricoh Imaging to further expand the reach, capabilities and competitiveness of the Pentax brand products. We all want that, don't we?

Or did we think Hoya had the right idea?

Please... I still get hives from the Hoya malpractice.... Thx for the "tee-up"

---------- Post added 09-10-15 at 09:47 PM ----------

This sounds logical, and I don't disagree with the notion that Tamron lenses, rebadged or not, should sell at Tamron prices. However, at the same time the statement implies that all Tamron (or all third party?) lenses are inferior to all Pentax designed...assembled lenses. I'm sure such is not the case.

Tamron solutions (Ex:18-250 and 18-270) work for what they are intended. Looking at bench tests, the PTX coatings DO make a difference. A decent lens design can be made better by materials, barrel construction, coatings and ED elements, which are commonly seen in OEM rebadges (PTX, Nik, Can...).

Remember (I love this one)... The first 10 years of Nikon AFs were Pentax designed... Then the "Mizu Shobai" of Hoya got involved...

[gazonk]

You mean 1,000 mp

Not really

I wrote 80 mp because an 80mp FF 645 camera would have the same pixel density as the 50mp 645Z!

[Simen1]

So you go to a fancy restaurant and pay top price for dinner. But on the way out you pass the kitchen and see a stack of frozen dinner boxes. Was your dinner just a re-badged frozen meal? Hmmmmm

So Pentax lenses are a top price dinner at a fancy restaurant, while Tamron lenses are frozen meals? I love the way Pentaxians compare..

[Rondec]

When you buy an OEM lens you generally expect to pay more. The perception is that the lens will be 'better'. This is not always the case but whether you know and accept it or not when you purchase an OEM lens you are also subsidizing the brand and perhaps the price of the body. I know all that, and accept it as the way things are. But if you take another company's product and slap your label on it and still charge me the OEM premium tax I don't appreciate it.

I do care about the brand, and I support that brand by buying OEM lenses instead of third party lenses that are less expensive, though the image quality might be very close.

A lot depends on if it is a simple rebadge or Pentax using an existing optical formula and manufacturing it themselves to their own specifications. If it is the latter, then I would think there is reason to pay a little more than for the Tamron version. The biggest problems with non-brand lenses usually surround inconsistent focusing and colors that are different from brand colors. The second can be an issue with editing where you need to adjust your presets in Lightroom, etc to try to get consistent output. I assume this is related to lens coatings, as there are small differences, even between the FA limiteds and DA limiteds, for example.

[mecrox]

So Pentax lenses are a top price dinner at a fancy restaurant, while Tamron lenses are frozen meals? I love the way Pentaxians compare..

Lol. Cook chill is the term here and a few scandals in the resto biz suggest the comparison may be surprisingly near the mark in some cases, with those piles of frozen boxes heading for top tables with new covers on. It's important to be a little sceptical of the claims made about lenses, imho. There are beeg marketing machines behind these high value items which have good margins for the companies, and charts and geeky stuff beloved of Internet review sites rarely tell the whole story either. I like to start from a more modest position: what does this $1000 item give me that my 20-year old $50 dollar item doesn't give me? And even then, is it worth it - my kind of camera, my style? Sometimes definitely yes but more often not really. For example, a Pentax rebadge of a Tamrom lens would a) be a lot more expensive, and b) come with a one or two year Pentax guarantee instead of Tamron's 5-6 year one. Multiply that a couple of times and you likely have most of the cost of a body for which Tamron make a native mount anyway. Just not worth it, imho. If someone wants Tamron lenses (or Sigma ones) that much, it may make more sense to change brands.