[RJH]

I'm a user of the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 lol, it is one of the best lenses I have ever owned and seen in use. So screw those people

Also had a Tamron 90 F2.8 macro and it was gorgeous.

Ditto...

[Asahiflex]

I know this is going to go in the face of opinion but I don't consider it a particularly affordable lens for what it is compared to the other 24-70's out there.

Stating it is proving it. You go first.

[Rondec]

I know this is going to go in the face of opinion but I don't consider it a particularly affordable lens for what it is compared to the other 24-70's out there.

Maybe if they'd left the VR in that would of added value and something the others don't have, but they took that out.

The only 24-70 f2.8 I know of for under 1000 is the Sigma, which doesn't get great marks from review sites. Tokina is right at 1000 and Nikon, Canon and Sony all sell theirs for north of 1700 dollars.

Full frame cameras will be expensive. If you don't need 24mm, the 28-70s are cheaper, but I really would want 24mm and will probably get this lens. The older lenses do not have the border sharpness that you want. This lens has a lot more corrective elements than you will find in an older zoom. (Pentax 28-70 f2.8 lenses aren't exactly cheap on the used market either).

[robjmitchell]

While I'm sure most of us would have loved to see some super duper world beating lens from pentax, in the short term the most important thing is to populate the FF lens line up to make the system viable. A tweaked tamron lens at a hell of a good price is definitely a positive for the brand. Improved lens coatings, an upgraded element or two and some weather sealing in a already decent lens is nothing to be depressed about. The bonus is that it means Pentax can focus on their strengths, like some new primes.

[gazonk]

It's a heavy lens, but it's a 2.8 lens and 24-70 certainly is a useful range also on APS-C, so for Pentaxians that know they'll buy the FF ASAP and don't already own other fast zooms which overlap with this lens (like the 16-50 or maybe the 20-40 ltd), it certainly could make sense to buy it already.

[Chris Giles]

Stating it is proving it. You go first.

Pentax 24-70 RRP £1149
Canon 24-70 MKii £1299 Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8 L II USM

The latter is a genuine EU version too.

Only £150 more for a Canon over a Tamron. The Canon being a class leading prime sharp optic.

But that's not hating on Pentax, I'm just explaining the thought process I went through when I read the spec and pricing. A system is more than just the lens.

The elephant in the room is what it will actually end up being. The Sigma 24-35 F2 was slated at an £899 UK street price yet can be had new on ebay for £600. Will the 24-70 have the same pricing variance?

[Zygonyx]

Let's mix, mix, mix, mix, things together...

You Tube

You Tube

[IchabodCrane]

I don't understand it.. not only here.. but also at other photography forums.. people whine and moan about Pentax as if the name Pentax is Japanese for 'were positive that you're negative'

If this gear had Nikon or Canon written on it with a marked up price, there wouldn't be enough accolades and praise to grant it.

If it was given a Nikon badge, it would have a five year warranty.

---------- Post added 09-25-15 at 07:53 AM ----------

Well they could add $100 to the price and some years to the warranty, but they added glass elements, HD, weather sealing and probably some other little things and held the price instead.

The Tamron lens was already weather-resistant and no doubt the lens elements were coated. Granted, the Pentax coatings are going to be different but that doesn't mean they are significantly more expensive.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

The VC is useless with an IBIS body for a 24-70.

The VC would be far from "useless" given that Pentax decided to disable IBIS for video recording. It would also create a pathway for a dual IBIS/OS system, like Sony and Panasonic are using (and probably Olympus in the future).

[IchabodCrane]

The sad thing is, the only Tamron Lenses that seem to be coming our way are ones that are rebadged by Pentax. The Pentax name no doubt guarantees a certain number of sales, that maybe Tamron can't achieve on it's own. Which isn't surprising given the low regard much of the forum seems to hold these lenses. If you want to get shot down in flames, just suggest some Tamron lens might be decent.

It makes good sense for both companies, IMHO. Tamron removes their risk of having unsold units in a low-volume mount by transferring that risk to Ricoh. Ricoh doesn't spend a lot of development money on something that already exists and is quite capable.

[cxdoo]

I'm a user of the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 lol, it is one of the best lenses I have ever owned and seen in use. So screw those people

The facts

1) it's a FF lens,
2) comes with a 6 year warranty and
3) cost me only ~500 EUR brand new


are distant 2nd, 3rd and 4th to the fact it makes it easy to capture great looking photos.


One of the rare "wow this came out better than I expected!" lenses.

[shakereduced]

I still keep seeing people saying this is nothing more than a rebadge of the Tamron. It is not. Here is the product page for this lens. Reading the text and looking at the lens design shown, this lens has an AD element (anomalous dispersion glass). The Tamron does not. There may also be a difference in the front aspherical element with the Tamron being hybrid and the Pentax being glass, but so far it's unclear from Ricoh's descriptions. Either way, it's at least an upgrade with the AD element over the Tamron.

[Glorfindelrb]

The VC would be far from "useless" given that Pentax decided to disable IBIS for video recording. It would also create a pathway for a dual IBIS/OS system, like Sony and Panasonic are using (and probably Olympus in the future).

Ok for video, but I don't expect any Tamron VC to work with an EOM dual IBIS system anyway.

[mee]

If it was given a Nikon badge, it would have a five year warranty.

---------- Post added 09-25-15 at 07:53 AM ----------



The Tamron lens was already weather-resistant and no doubt the lens elements were coated. Granted, the Pentax coatings are going to be different but that doesn't mean they are significantly more expensive.

See what I mean! Complainingggg.. Besides, if it had a Nikon badge, it would have 500 dollars added to the price (go look at the price of the lens on B&H).

I am just happy we have a decent 24-70 f/2.8 WR FF lens for an upcoming FF DSLR body..

If you want a 5 year warranty buy one on the side and it will be around the same price of the Nikon in total.


This must be to what we have to look forward with the body itself too.. it doesn't have this, it doesn't have that, it costs too little, it costs too much, what was Pentax thinking, was Pentax thinking at all, what a piece of junk, yadda yadda.. never happy. It makes me wonder why do I even come here? ..I expect news and (granted) a bit of back and forth.. but I just come away feeling down and negative after reading all the negative bickery garbage here lately.

[grispie]

I am just happy we have a decent 24-70 f/2.8 WR FF lens for an upcoming FF DSLR body..

+1
plenty of time for exotic lenses to come..