[monochrome]

I would be happier with a three year warranty on new lenses out of the box. Not everyone will be aware, but for those that are it seems wrong to buy a rebadged Tamron lens and get a 1 year warranty when you could (if it was available) buy the Tamron itself and get a 6 year warranty.

Especially if the retail price is practically the same when you look across to it's price in other mounts, as it seems to be with this new Tamron.

I really do think the warranty issue is dictated by volume (Pentax's low volume versus Tamron's probable high volume since they manufacture for so many mounts). Additionally, there's the fact that Tamron wouldn't be the company honoring the warranty, Pentax would be, so whatever economics go into Pentax's warranty decisions also apply to the 24~70, whoever manufactures it.

[goldenarrow]

And if I were going to buy an extended warranty, I'd rather get one from Mack Camera than from Pentax. If Mack can't get your item repaired, they'll cut you a check for the replacement cost. I had a good experience with them with one of my old home theater projectors. I bought it second hand for $500, and the original owner bought a Mack Camera warranty which I was able to transfer to my name. When it failed and was deemed too expensive to repair, Mack sent me a $1000 check to replace it with the current model. The whole process took a few weeks, but they did send me the check.

If someone does decide to buy a Pentax lens, in addition to the 3rd party warranty, I would also use a charge card that extends the warranty. For example, my Visa card doubles manufacturer's warranties up to an additional year. So my new Pentax lens would be covered for 2 years. And Visa would probably be a lot more responsive to a customer when Pentax tried to take months to repair the thing.

WOW! That's an incredible story. Is Mack that good?

Also, this may sound like a dumb question (but I revel in asking dumb questions because no one is stupid enough to ask them, except me), does the $20 Pentax 2-year camera warranty bought with the special VISA card become a 4-year Pentax warranty??? So, does that mean that the one-year normal camera warranty become a 2-year warranty, and then the $20 2-year extension becomes a 4-year extended warranty giving you a total of 6-freaking years of warranty coverage?!?!?!

Just had to ask....

[thibs]

I asked in practice this is not really the case. You have to prove that there was an hidden deffect from the begining I think if this is after 6 month for this law. But another law grant you at least 1 year.

It is 1+1 AFAICT legally but most brands apply 2 full years.

[calsan]

That Mack warranty sounds pretty good.
Best 'warranty' I ever heard of was from Yamaha, although it wasn't official, more just really nice corporate behaviour. A friend bought a second hand five disc cd player. It got banged by someone falling on it at a party and stopped working. He took it to Yamaha to get repaired and told them the truth about what happened and that he didn't have a receipt or warranty and was the second owner. They fixed it for him - no charge. I've bought Yamaha since hearing that story and indeed, they answer customer emails straight away.
Hard for business to measure good will on their bottom line, but it's probably more than they realise.

[Franc]

I asked in practice this is not really the case. You have to prove that there was an hidden deffect from the begining I think if this is after 6 month for this law. But another law grant you at least 1 year.

No, the proof is with the dealer, but then the hassle is with them and they don't want it. EU law stipulates 2 years warranty.
In Holland its extended. If i buy equipment that should last a minimun of 10 years the warranty goes up between 5 and 7 years. The problem is between the dealer and the company that made the product. But i only have to deal with the dealer. Depending on the company the cost for fixing it is for the dealer. But he sold you the product.

[Daikokuya]

A Japanese camera retailer Yaotomi asked Pentax why the 24-70mm isn't a star lens, and it got a response from Pentax:

????????HD PENTAX-D FA 24-70mmF2.8ED SDM WR??????????????? - ??????????by????????

"We decide whether to call a lens 'star' based on several factors."
"The 24-70mm doesn't meet the criteria, so we haven't made it a star lens."
"We don't announce what decision criteria we use."

That's it.

[Sandy Hancock]

"We decide whether to call a lens 'star' based on several factors."
"The 24-70mm doesn't meet the criteria, so we haven't made it a star lens."
"We don't announce what decision criteria we use."

I'll have a guess:

It's not sufficiently WR to qualify as AW
It's not a Pentax design
Filter size is too big to fit with the 58/67/77 current lenses

Any others?

[robjmitchell]

I'll have a guess:

It's not sufficiently WR to qualify as AW
It's not a Pentax design
Filter size is too big to fit with the 58/67/77 current lenses

Any others?

Doesn't have a gold ring on it!

[rawr]

Any others?

It's not expensive enough.

[Sandy Hancock]

I would suggest those two are consequences of the ineligibility, not causes.
But I expect you both realise that

[Mazhe]

I'll have a guess:

It's not sufficiently WR to qualify as AW
It's not a Pentax design
Filter size is too big to fit with the 58/67/77 current lenses

Any others?

The DA* 16-50/2.8 was not a pentax design... I guess it's rather "not built in pentax factories" which is a no-go, and there's probably more quality control on the star lenses.

[biz-engineer]

One of the decision criteria to label a lens as a star lens, is Price (one of the marketing 4Ps). It is not only related to technical performance of the lens. If customers know that the DFA24-70 is a rebadged Tamron lens, they wouldn't be willing to pay the price of an OEM lens (such as $2k for the Nikon or Canon L equivalent), so, Ricoh must price the DA 24-70 similar to a Tamron lens (also this is a barrier to competing system such as a D610+Tamron 24-70). Once the DFA 24-70 is priced lower than a "pro grade" lens, they can't sell it as a DFA* lens otherwise this would dilute the price/quality association of star lenses. In marketing terms, you just can't use a third party lens (unless the origin of the lens would be kept secret) and sell it as a top of the OEM line product. In addition, having the Tamron 24-70 not labeled as a start lens, give room to Ricoh to introduce another star lens in the future, for instance a DFA*24-120 or something like that. It's all about marketing strategy, and for sure, Ricoh won't share their marketing strategy with anyone outside or Ricoh.

[RobA_Oz]

The D-FA24-70/2.8 is not greatly more expensive than the DA*16-50/2.8, and covers the same field of view, to all intents and purposes, so I don't see that the price argument holds much water. In the hotly-debated aperture equivalence area, of course, it's more highly specified than the 16-50, and there's obviously more glass involved, so the higher price could be justified on that tenuous basis.

[ogl]

The DA* 16-50/2.8 was not a pentax design... I guess it's rather "not built in pentax factories" which is a no-go, and there's probably more quality control on the star lenses.

patented by Pentax. cooperation with Tokina. made in Vietnam.

---------- Post added 09-29-2015 at 02:24 AM ----------

The D-FA24-70/2.8 is not greatly more expensive than the DA*16-50/2.8, and covers the same field of view, to all intents and purposes, so I don't see that the price argument holds much water. In the hotly-debated aperture equivalence area, of course, it's more highly specified than the 16-50, and there's obviously more glass involved, so the higher price could be justified on that tenuous basis.

DA*16-50 reached 1200-1300 USD, by the way... Hoya time

[robjmitchell]

I'm not sure this image is from the new lens or not but it will be interesting to see the improvement in contrast between the tamron and pentax due to HD coating. from the site linked a few pages back.
????????HD PENTAX-D FA 24-70mmF2.8ED SDM WR??????????????? - ??????????by????????