D FA 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR Officially Announced

Kunzite · 09-25-2015, 02:23 AM

The DA* 16-50 is a Pentax lens made in the Pentax lens factory; I'm not sure what's your point with it as an example?

lotech · 09-25-2015, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

I'm sure people happily shooting with the 150-450mm would disagree with your "skip it" idea

Oh skip me for now then, I still love my K3 set

richard balonglong · 09-25-2015, 02:24 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by sunshine7913

I'm not talking about the price. I'm complain about Pentax. Why can't they make their own?

They can make their own, but it would still end up being the same kind of lens, but a more expensive 24-70 lens. Why complain? This is a good lens and, finally, we have a 24-70 f/2.8 lens.

**Pål Jensen** · 09-25-2015, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

The DA* 16-50 is a Pentax lens made in the Pentax lens factory; I'm not sure what's your point with it as an example?

The point is that it is a simple rebadge without any Pentax pixiedust or coatings.

Sinister · 09-25-2015, 02:39 AM - **2 Likes**

the chef's spoon seems to be very important for creating an excellent dinner... I've heard only bronze alloyed spoons do the job...

**monochrome** · 09-25-2015, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

The point is that it is a simple rebadge without any Pentax pixiedust or coatings.

Well, maybe. I'm not going to dig them out of all these posts, but compare the published lens schematics. Do marketers just 'Say' molded glass instead of hybrid aspherical? HD? WR? QS? Does the Tamron have a metal barrel?

This time it appears (to me anyway), rather than adding nothing and charging more, they added features and charged the same - but that's so large a change that it just can't be true. . . .

But I suppose I'm uncharacteristically positive. Maybe I just use the wrong cameras.

mythguy9 · 09-25-2015, 02:45 AM - **3 Likes**

Should we rejoice that it is a good announcement (one more step towards FF) rather than getting too fixed on the "rebadge or not" side?

dcBear78 · 09-25-2015, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

The point is that it is a simple rebadge without any Pentax pixiedust or coatings.

That's ok... There is nothing at all wrong with the lens they are starting with...

Allan & Emma by Crew One Photography, on Flickr

IMRF Headshots by Crew One Photography, on Flickr

Mick and Duey by Crew One Photography, on Flickr

Sharon's Pamper not Cancer Day by Crew One Photography, on Flickr

HMCS Protector by Crew One Photography, on Flickr

Using a Tamron lens can only be a good thing IMO. Also means Tamron may not make their own and rob sales from Pentax. I just wish they had used the Tamron 70-200mm too as that is an even better lens.

**Rondec** · 09-25-2015, 02:57 AM

So much hand wringing...

It is a good lens for a reasonable price. I am pleasantly surprised, considering that I thought a Pentax designed 24-70 f2.8 was going to come in at 1800 or 1900 dollars. And while Pentax is magic, odds are that they wouldn't have created a lens that significantly outperformed this one.

It is pretty clear that they have their hands full getting full frame camera ready, along with the 70-200 and they made a business decision that they would be better off tweaking Tamron's 24-70 and 15-30 designs and letting Tamron manufacture them, than starting from scratch.

Once Pentax gets the camera body into shops and releases a full line up of primes, then they can go back and make their own designs of lenses that Tamron is making for them. In the meantime, it is better to have the lens line up filled out than to have to wait two to three years for them to design each lens and get it out the door.

Looked at the photos on the website and I do wonder why they always have such lousy photos to demonstrate a new lens.

mecrox · 09-25-2015, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

Compare the published lens schematics.

Do marketers just 'Say' molded glass instead of hybrid aspherical? HD? WR? QS? Does the Tamron have a metal barrel?

Doubt all you wish, but it appears to be more than a simple rebadge. This time it appears, rather than adding nothing and charging more, they added features and charged the same - but that's so large a change that it just can't be true. . . .

What was or wasn't changed will all become clear in time. What a marketer says should be treated with extreme scepticism across any product in any industry. The most recent example of how reliable marketing claims are is currently being laid bare in the German motor industry. I don't think is is a "simple rebadge" either but exactly what that means is not available at the moment.

It remains that in its Tamron colours this lens has been warmly received and is clearly well thought of, optically anyway. If I were in the market for one, my concern would be robust build quality and our old friend, decentering, whose ghost probably haunts Tamron production lines more than most. I would be certain that a lens like this would far exceed my talents, anyway.

Chris Giles · 09-25-2015, 03:12 AM

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.

Glorfindelrb · 09-25-2015, 03:17 AM

The VC is useless with an IBIS body for a 24-70. Still nice to have on a tele for stabilization in the OVF but for a 24-70 it's just potential issues with more electronics and a switch you'll never use. That's not what I call "value".

Kunzite · 09-25-2015, 03:17 AM

Compared to which other 24-70 out there?
And what's the added value of having both in-body and in-lens stabilization?

dcBear78 · 09-25-2015, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Compared to which other 24-70 out there?
And what's the added value of having both in-body and in-lens stabilization?

It is the bargain buy out there. But the VC could be used for video?

thibs · 09-25-2015, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by lotech

I don't get it, why Pentax rush out 2 tele zoom before this one ?

Because both Teles are certainly useful on APS.
Not that the 24-70 and 15-30 would be useless but a lot less typical usage certainly.

09-25-2015, 02:39 AM	#96
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Pål Jensen The point is that it is a simple rebadge without any Pentax pixiedust or coatings. Well, maybe. I'm not going to dig them out of all these posts, but compare the published lens schematics. Do marketers just 'Say' molded glass instead of hybrid aspherical? HD? WR? QS? Does the Tamron have a metal barrel? This time it appears (to me anyway), rather than adding nothing and charging more, they added features and charged the same - but that's so large a change that it just can't be true. . . . But I suppose I'm uncharacteristically positive. Maybe I just use the wrong cameras. Last edited by monochrome; 09-25-2015 at 04:31 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR Announced	PF Staff	Homepage & Official Pentax News	0	09-24-2015 03:00 PM
Lens Tournament: FA 77mm F1.8 Limited vs D FA 100mm F2.8 WR Macro	Adam	Pentax Forums Giveaways	17	10-27-2014 07:19 AM
For Sale - Sold: D-FA 100mm f2.8 Macro WR	Eagle_Friends	Sold Items	6	09-09-2014 10:00 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax D-FA 100mm f2.8 Macro WR & DA* 200mm F2.8 ED [IF] SDM	jurysi	Sold Items	11	09-17-2012 05:27 PM
New Pentax D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Announced	Zebooka	Pentax News and Rumors	222	01-09-2010 03:51 PM

09-25-2015, 02:23 AM	#91
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	The DA* 16-50 is a Pentax lens made in the Pentax lens factory; I'm not sure what's your point with it as an example?

09-25-2015, 02:24 AM	#92
lotech Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 1,311	Originally posted by Kunzite I'm sure people happily shooting with the 150-450mm would disagree with your "skip it" idea Oh skip me for now then, I still love my K3 set

09-25-2015, 02:24 AM - 1 Like	#93
richard balonglong Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Baguio City, Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 350	Originally posted by sunshine7913 I'm not talking about the price. I'm complain about Pentax. Why can't they make their own? They can make their own, but it would still end up being the same kind of lens, but a more expensive 24-70 lens. Why complain? This is a good lens and, finally, we have a 24-70 f/2.8 lens.

09-25-2015, 02:28 AM	#94
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Kunzite The DA* 16-50 is a Pentax lens made in the Pentax lens factory; I'm not sure what's your point with it as an example? The point is that it is a simple rebadge without any Pentax pixiedust or coatings.

09-25-2015, 02:39 AM - 2 Likes	#95
Sinister Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Berlin Posts: 1,045	the chef's spoon seems to be very important for creating an excellent dinner... I've heard only bronze alloyed spoons do the job...

09-25-2015, 02:45 AM - 3 Likes	#97
mythguy9 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 276	Should we rejoice that it is a good announcement (one more step towards FF) rather than getting too fixed on the "rebadge or not" side?

09-25-2015, 02:51 AM	#98
dcBear78 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Gladstone, QLD Photos: Gallery Posts: 823	Originally posted by Pål Jensen The point is that it is a simple rebadge without any Pentax pixiedust or coatings. That's ok... There is nothing at all wrong with the lens they are starting with... Allan & Emma by Crew One Photography, on Flickr IMRF Headshots by Crew One Photography, on Flickr Mick and Duey by Crew One Photography, on Flickr Sharon's Pamper not Cancer Day by Crew One Photography, on Flickr HMCS Protector by Crew One Photography, on Flickr Using a Tamron lens can only be a good thing IMO. Also means Tamron may not make their own and rob sales from Pentax. I just wish they had used the Tamron 70-200mm too as that is an even better lens.

09-25-2015, 02:57 AM	#99
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	So much hand wringing... It is a good lens for a reasonable price. I am pleasantly surprised, considering that I thought a Pentax designed 24-70 f2.8 was going to come in at 1800 or 1900 dollars. And while Pentax is magic, odds are that they wouldn't have created a lens that significantly outperformed this one. It is pretty clear that they have their hands full getting full frame camera ready, along with the 70-200 and they made a business decision that they would be better off tweaking Tamron's 24-70 and 15-30 designs and letting Tamron manufacture them, than starting from scratch. Once Pentax gets the camera body into shops and releases a full line up of primes, then they can go back and make their own designs of lenses that Tamron is making for them. In the meantime, it is better to have the lens line up filled out than to have to wait two to three years for them to design each lens and get it out the door. Looked at the photos on the website and I do wonder why they always have such lousy photos to demonstrate a new lens.

09-25-2015, 03:05 AM	#100
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Originally posted by monochrome Compare the published lens schematics. Do marketers just 'Say' molded glass instead of hybrid aspherical? HD? WR? QS? Does the Tamron have a metal barrel? Doubt all you wish, but it appears to be more than a simple rebadge. This time it appears, rather than adding nothing and charging more, they added features and charged the same - but that's so large a change that it just can't be true. . . . What was or wasn't changed will all become clear in time. What a marketer says should be treated with extreme scepticism across any product in any industry. The most recent example of how reliable marketing claims are is currently being laid bare in the German motor industry. I don't think is is a "simple rebadge" either but exactly what that means is not available at the moment. It remains that in its Tamron colours this lens has been warmly received and is clearly well thought of, optically anyway. If I were in the market for one, my concern would be robust build quality and our old friend, decentering, whose ghost probably haunts Tamron production lines more than most. I would be certain that a lens like this would far exceed my talents, anyway.

09-25-2015, 03:12 AM	#101
Chris Giles Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 45	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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-25-2015, 03:17 AM	#102
Glorfindelrb Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 364	The VC is useless with an IBIS body for a 24-70. Still nice to have on a tele for stabilization in the OVF but for a 24-70 it's just potential issues with more electronics and a switch you'll never use. That's not what I call "value".

09-25-2015, 03:17 AM	#103
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Compared to which other 24-70 out there? And what's the added value of having both in-body and in-lens stabilization?

09-25-2015, 03:19 AM	#104
dcBear78 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Gladstone, QLD Photos: Gallery Posts: 823	Originally posted by Kunzite Compared to which other 24-70 out there? And what's the added value of having both in-body and in-lens stabilization? It is the bargain buy out there. But the VC could be used for video?

09-25-2015, 03:21 AM	#105
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by lotech I don't get it, why Pentax rush out 2 tele zoom before this one ? Because both Teles are certainly useful on APS. Not that the 24-70 and 15-30 would be useless but a lot less typical usage certainly.