[ogl]

From a Russian forum?

It's just my supposition

[rangercarp]

What I still wonder the most about is the 2.8/70-200... for a Tamron design it is too expensive and too heavy.

Maybe because the 70-200 is a Pentax design, not a Tamron? We have known that for a long time.

[shardulm]

"Maybe because the 70-200 is a Pentax desig"

It IS a Pentax design. Note that it is an D-FA * lens. D-FA(star). I don't think Pentax will use a star on the rebadges.

---------- Post added 02-15-16 at 03:14 AM ----------

70-200f2.8 is the only Star lens that is being announced/released. Their "*" designation means it is special optics.
The other two 24-70 and 150-450 i.e. aren't "*" lenses.

[D1N0]

All Tamron rebadges are pretty obvious. They look like the Tamron version with Pentax rubbers and a green ring. When it doesn't look like a Tamron it is not a Tamron.

[zapp]

"Maybe because the 70-200 is a Pentax desig"

It IS a Pentax design. Note that it is an D-FA * lens. D-FA(star). I don't think Pentax will use a star on the rebadges.

---------- Post added 02-15-16 at 03:14 AM ----------

70-200f2.8 is the only Star lens that is being announced/released. Their "*" designation means it is special optics.
The other two 24-70 and 150-450 i.e. aren't "*" lenses.

It is so special that you cannot buy it one year after the announcement. Tamron re-badged lenses are available right away.
Maybe the Pentax D-FA* 70-200 will lose a * quite soon and become available as a re-badged Tamron right away. Currently I would not insist on the * or Pentax' ability to produce great glass - please proof me wrong Pentax.

[D1N0]

It is so special that you cannot buy it one year after the announcement. Tamron re-badged lenses are available right away.
Maybe the Pentax D-FA* 70-200 will lose a * quite soon and become available as a re-badged Tamron right away. Currently I would not insist on the * or Pentax' ability to produce great glass - please proof me wrong Pentax.

Don't worry about it. You are wrong!

[pete-tarmigan]

Pentax-D FA 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 ED DC WR

Could this be an updated version of the smc 28-105 f/3.2-5.6, although they would have to use some type of coating, likely HD.

There were two FA versions of the 28-105mm: f/4-5.6 and f/3.2-4.5

The new D FA lens has an optical formula that is different from both of those lenses. That sounds more like a new design rather than an update (new coatings and new external appearance).

The FA f/4-5.6 had 13 elements in 11 groups.
The FA f/3.2-4.5 had 12 elements in 11 groups.
The D FA 3.5-5.6 has 15 elements in 11 groups.

[shuttles12000]

Don't diss Pentax for using Tamron to assemble their lenses.
Pentax uses Pentax glass, made using it's specs, formulas and coatings. It's what differentiates their lenses from other's lenses.
Most people don't know that during the 90's Cosina manufactured most of the cameras made and their lenses too.
All it takes is the parts and an a skilled assembly line. So Pentax parts, Tamron assembly line - that's all

[Franc]

Currently I would not insist on the * or Pentax' ability to produce great glass.

then you already missed the excellent DFA 150-450.

[ogl]

There were two FA versions of the 28-105mm: f/4-5.6 and f/3.2-4.5

The new D FA lens has an optical formula that is different from both of those lenses. That sounds more like a new design rather than an update (new coatings and new external appearance).

The FA f/4-5.6 had 13 elements in 11 groups.
The FA f/3.2-4.5 had 12 elements in 11 groups.
The D FA 3.5-5.6 has 15 elements in 11 groups.

and 9 blades aperture

[Azergoth]

Currently I would not insist on the * or Pentax' ability to produce great glass - please proof me wrong Pentax.

Are you talking about the prime lenses lacking HSM/USM focus, with wide apertures and excellent image quality, such as the Sigma Art and recent Tamron?

[i5_david]

No mention of this amazing 24-70?! What will you predict on a kit with this tamron rebadged standard zoom f2.8?! More of less than three grand?!

[Mistral75]

No mention of this amazing 24-70?! What will you predict on a kit with this tamron rebadged standard zoom f2.8?! More of less than three grand?!

Less: $2,999 .

[i5_david]

I Hoped for something like this. Maybe 2.800€ or so... this would make me weak

[Original Bandicoot]

Why 28-105? 24 is the new 28 and has been for years

Because it's the kit lens. The 'serious' standard zoom is the 24-70 f2.8.

---------- Post added 02-18-16 at 01:57 PM ----------

I think you need to look at what people are saying about the 24-70. I've not read anything bad about it at all. And I've had the 17-50 (multiple copies), the 70-200 and the 90 2.8. The excellent copies of the 17-50 were the best in its range (I have a solid 16-50 DA* now). The Tamron 70-200 is simply great, and worth the money that it costs. The 90 2.8 macro is an incredible lens also. I'm sorry you haven't had great luck with Tamron, but I sure love my 70-200, and the 90 2.8 was stellar. I am considering going back to the Tamron 17-50 over the 16-50 because of weight.

My 2 cents. But I've read nothing but stellar reviews of the 15-30 and the 24-70. Tamron has upped its game since they designed the PK 17-50, for sure.

Tamron went through a sucky period (the Pentax re-badged 28-200...) but they have have strong heritage: my old Tamron 300/2.8 and 180/2.5 are excellent, I'm happy with my 70-200/2.8, and the close focusing 300/5.6 is is uniquely useful lens. My wife's old 90/2.5 is also a beauty.

Yes Tamron did have that sucky patch, but in the last few years they seem to have more in common with that strong heritage than with the duds.