[thibs]

Actually I think that if Hoya behaved more in an Apple way of doing (which may be the case in the long run, Hoya is a big company and big companies often react that way) RH would get a nice trial in his bottom...

I would not agree btw because to me it would look like a nuclear missile to kill a mosquito but I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Is there any meaningful legal department at Hoya?

[regken]

Wow RH ignored my post because he couldn't find anything wrong in it to ague about.

Oh well, guess he is finally feeling the pressure of people who know more about this stuff than he does.

Chris,
I'm certainly not an RH apologist, he is irritating at the very least. I do feel a need to respond in regards to the lenses Pentax has introduced this last year. Specifically 3 out of the 9 were badly handled at the very least.

The 18-250, according to you is made by Tamron but reworked by Pentax to their specs. In an earlier post you stated this information came from Ned to you. I find this highly unlikely since the ones I've see are marked "Made in Japan" where the Tamron factory is located. If I am right then Ned is guilty of misrepresenting the product. If you are right then Pentax is guilty of increadable arrogence and mismanagement of resources. Buying an OEM product and relabling it to make a profit is smart business but to buy a very good OEM product then spending money to modify it just so you can say it is your design is not only arrogent but wastes valuable time and money.

The 17-70 could have been done by purchasing the Sigma 17-70 and have it relabled. All of the time and money spent on developing this lens should have been spent on a special lens in the Pentax tradition. This attitude of everything needs to be developed in house or it isn't any good has been the death of more than one company.

The 16-50 had or has QC issues. Yes all compaies have QC issues from time to time and the difference is how these problems are handled. Pentax choose to handle this problem in the way they have in the past and that was to ignore it until somebody complained then they fix it but reluctantly, often giving the customer a hard time. A forward thinking company that is coming from the back of the pack needs to step up to problems like this and be pro-active. I saw no evidence of Pentax agressively addressing this QC problem.

There are "Feel good" messages coming from Pentax through "Trusted" users but nothing direct as to how they plan on progessing. Typical behavior for a recently acquired company but time is drawing short for them to answer the question that most CEO's ask and that is "What have you done for me today, not yesterday".

Regards,

[thibs]

Chris,
I'm certainly not an RH apologist, he is irritating at the very least.

Is he? .

I do feel a need to respond in regards to the lenses Pentax has introduced this last year. Specifically 3 out of the 9 were badly handled at the very least.

See my comments...

The 18-250, according to you is made by Tamron but reworked by Pentax to their specs. In an earlier post you stated this information came from Ned to you. I find this highly unlikely since the ones I've see are marked "Made in Japan" where the Tamron factory is located. If I am right then Ned is guilty of misrepresenting the product. If you are right then Pentax is guilty of increadable arrogence and mismanagement of resources. Buying an OEM product and relabling it to make a profit is smart business but to buy a very good OEM product then spending money to modify it just so you can say it is your design is not only arrogent but wastes valuable time and money.

You are jumping guns a bit fast here: as for what you wrote (dunno the exact words used by Ned), Ned didn't say Pentax manufactured the lens: he said the lens was made to Pentax specs which is quite a bit different as far as this discussion is concerned.

The 17-70 could have been done by purchasing the Sigma 17-70 and have it relabled. All of the time and money spent on developing this lens should have been spent on a special lens in the Pentax tradition. This attitude of everything needs to be developed in house or it isn't any good has been the death of more than one company.

That would be VERY stupid. Never will an OEM license a design from a 3rd party vendor which soesn't even license the OEM tech in the on the first hand. As you know, Sigma never license OEM tech, the reverse engineer it and the explains quite well the bad Sigma reputation as far as compatibility with OEM is concerned.

Pentax will never license a Sigma design. That would encourage Sigma further. Forget that right now

In a perfect world... well you got it I think

[regken]

Is he? .


That would be VERY stupid. Never will an OEM license a design from a 3rd party vendor which soesn't even license the OEM tech in the on the first hand. As you know, Sigma never license OEM tech, the reverse engineer it and the explains quite well the bad Sigma reputation as far as compatibility with OEM is concerned.

Pentax will never license a Sigma design. That would encourage Sigma further. Forget that right now

In a perfect world... well you got it I think

So it's OK to buy from Tamron but not Sigma? Huh?

[thibs]

So it's OK to buy from Tamron but not Sigma? Huh?

Sure since Tamron does license mounts from OEM.
This is from an OEM point of view of course. It does not mean I agree with this fact, just that if I were running an OEM business I would do the exact same thing.

Tamron pays for OEM techs covered by patents (mounts essentially), Sigma circumvent them (which is absolutely legal btw) by reverse engeneering it. What would you expect? That OEM would give Sigma money by buying their designs? Certainly not !

It explains IMO the difference between Most 3rd party lens makers and Sigma. Most brands use 3rd party designs but AFAIK no OEM did ever source a lens from Sigma in modern times (that I'm aware of, of course).

[Ken Eremko]

Glad the sky is'nt tumbling down on top of Pentax cause I just bought a Pentax DA55/300 and a Sigma 10/20 and sold my K10D and a new K20 is on the way as I type and I'm very happy with Pentax. ken

[regken]

Sure since Tamron does license mounts from OEM.
This is from an OEM point of view of course. It does not mean I agree with this fact, just that if I were running an OEM business I would do the exact same thing.

Tamron pays for OEM techs covered by patents (mounts essentially), Sigma circumvent them (which is absolutely legal btw) by reverse engeneering it. What would you expect? That OEM would give Sigma money by buying their designs? Certainly not !

It explains IMO the difference between Most 3rd party lens makers and Sigma. Most brands use 3rd party designs but AFAIK no OEM did ever source a lens from Sigma in modern times (that I'm aware of, of course).

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of that. Under those conditions I retract my statements regarding the 17-70. I still stand by my statements regarding the 16-50 and 18-250. As far as Ned saying it was built to Pentax specs, that is not what Chris reported. If that is what he said that makes total sense and I fully agree with that approach. The specs could be nothing more than "Put the Pentax name on it", or more extensive. The handling of the 16-50 QC problem was very badly done.

[creampuff]

Ken, Pentax has had a relationship with Tamron and Tokina that goes back several years. The DA 18-250 and the earlier FA 28-200 are originally Tamron designs.

If I remember correctly, the DA 18-250 came out at a time when Pentax needed a lens to fill the void for the year-end Christmas buying season. None of Pentax's own lenses in mentioned in their line-up were ready to hit the shelves. The Tamron was a ready design and a decent consumer grade lens, so tweaking it to Pentax specs (coating and cosmetics) made perfect sense.

Tamron is not the first to offer their designs for other makes. The Minolta 28-200 like the FA 28-200 are identical, so is our DA 18-250 and the Sony DT 18-250. In fact a number of the current Sony lenses are reputed to be made by Tamron.

Now according to an old Japanese friend of mine, most Japanese camera makers will not tie-up with Sigma for any lens collaboration. Perhaps because Sigma has a history of reverse engineering (case in point is the chipping issue of older Sigma lenses on Canon EOS mount) and batch inconsistency that is a point of contention.

Personally, I do not think porting over the Sigma 17-70 as a Pentax is a hot idea. It has a good range of focal lengths. It shows good center sharpness but the lens is weak/soft in the corners and some friends of mine have started letting go of theirs because the shortcomings start showing up when using the K20D. Some Sigma owners will disagree with me on this but I have personally have had mixed experiences with Sigma lenses in the past (chipping issues, fogging elements, flaky exterior finishes, yellowish colour rendition to name some).

[regken]

Ken, Pentax has had a relationship with Tamron and Tokina that goes back several years. The DA 18-250 and the earlier FA 28-200 are originally Tamron designs.


Tamron is not the first to offer their designs for other makes. The Minolta 28-200 like the FA 28-200 are identical, so is our DA 18-250 and the Sony DT 18-250. In fact a number of the current Sony lenses are reputed to be made by Tamron.

Now according to an old Japanese friend of mine, most Japanese camera makers will not tie-up with Sigma for any lens collaboration. Perhaps because Sigma has a history of reverse engineering (case in point is the chipping issue of older Sigma lenses on Canon EOS mount) and batch inconsistency that is a point of contention.

.

Hi,
As i said earlier, I wasn't aware of the problem concerning Sigma. As far as Pentax buying more OEM lenses from Tamron, Tokina, or anybody else I think it makes total sense. Why reinvent the wheel. It gets the line filled out faster and allows Pentax designers to concentrate on produces the are Pentax unique.

Hi,
As i said earlier, I wasn't aware of the problem concerning Sigma. As far as Pentax buying more OEM lenses from Tamron, Tokina, or anybody else I think it makes total sense. Why reinvent the wheel. It gets the line filled out faster and allows Pentax designers to concentrate on produces the are Pentax unique.

Ken,

Let me give you my input on this matter. AFAIK Tamron it's owned by Sony so I find it quite natural to make lenses for them. Pentax maybe needed this kind of super zoom and I know that many people buy this kind of lens for various reasons. I don't and never will so I have little interest or knowledge about this. But from my point of view Pentax does something no other company does right now it renews the entire lens range with new designs, glass and coatings and this will bring an edge as the resolution mounts up on the sensors.

I read that in 2007 Pentax executives promissed 25 new lenses in 2-3 years time. It was apparent earlier on that they had not enough ressources and this brings us to the DA* 16-50 debacle. I tell you the "official" story heard fron an official Pentax guy: the first batches suffered from poorly chosen motors so they failed or malfunction a lot. Also being pressured by very big demand the production was accelerated to the point QC was second place. This meant higher than normal "poor copies". Now the story I was given it's up for everyone's judgement but I believe it. Here in Europe in general defective merchandise it's taken care of in the warranty system. You get a poor lens, you send it back and it's either repaired or replaced. In the States I guess many actualy get a refund and the seller gets the lens back. Now this lens never make it to the Pentax for repair because it costs money and make the lens not available for sale and so one bad copy may get to many customers and ruin the reputation of this lens (which btw it's a spectacular one!). This could explain why there are so many complaints from our american friends and it can for sure guarantee that both Pentax (who claim not so many copies are bad) and people that swear the chances to get a good one are slim are actually correct. It would be very interesting to make a poll of customer satisfaction regarding DA* 16-50 based on geographical region. I could bet the vast majority of problems will come from people who bought from US vendors. Even more there are stories of entire "early made" batches bought by european vendors from the US at bargain prices considering the euro/dollar ratio and sold at a premium in Europe. Many of these were repaired by Pentax Europe or Pentax Japan.

About DA 17-70 I reserve my oppinion after I see some more detailed tests. Right now if I didn't had the DA* I may consider it after all the threads I saw.

Regarding Sigma IMO they are a company you better not to do business with. Arguments: they have the least professional DSLR system, they make firmware updates at machine gun rate of fire. Their DP1 was practically a beta camera when launched. They arguably have the worst reputation for QC all vendors combined, practically they could pattent the phrase "if you get a good copy!".

About licensing other designs in theory I opose this because Pentax is now at the apogee of its chances IMO. They have vaster ressources than imagined, they are owned by the biggest optical glass producer and I hope the next year will be a very succesfull one in terms of new lenses launched. They already seem more capable of actually puting new stuff on the market with more and more products available as we speak. If I have a personal wish for a licensed design this would be Voightlander VL 125/2.5 Macro. This lens with improved glass and coatings, weather sealing and SDM ring motor could be arguably the best lens in the world IMO. For the rest I don't see that many lenses to wish for in other systems that would be accesible to me money wise.

This is my oppinion,
Radu

[regken]

Radu,

Thanks for the Pentax point of view. Sorry but I'm not buying that beautiful bit of rationalization in regards to the U. S. market. To many people reported sending the same lens into Pentax for repair several times and getting it back with little or no improvement. The bottom line is the Pentax factory messed up as well as U.S repair facilities and U.S management did nothing to correct this debacle.

I keep looking for little nuggets of hope things are improving but am not finding them. The words of confidence recently passed on to us second hand by U.S. management are just that, words. Enough time has passed that talk about reorganization should be over. Positive actions need to be revealed.

[benjikan]

I also posted this on DPR:

A friend of mine in California, named Ned, has been corresponding with me via email and he talked about a camera company that he works for and it's future. I was surprised because it has many similarities to Pentax. Fancy that!

Here is an excerpt from his email to me:

"It looks like saner minds are prevailing due in part to "timo" and your posts. It appears that many folks on the forum have as much problem reading a financial statement as they do a focus chart.

Hoya is re-tooling the operations, changing our organization including the attitude and culture. We're focusing on dramatically improving our planning, time to market, and overall efficiencies.

As you know, Pentax was a very conservative, slow to change, risk averse organization. This will be a thing of the past, and was truly needed if Pentax is going to succeed long term.

Having worked at Canon, Polaroid, Adobe, all of these actions make perfect sense to me.

And, despite our having an expected loss in OP due to restructuring costs and weak demand for certain models, we were not alone in struggling with severe changes in the market and economy. In this same quarter, Canon's profit was -10%, and Nikon's was -23%.

Personally, I'm really enjoying working with the new execs that Hoya has put in place to turn us around. They're very sharp, understand the market, and are making everyone accountable for their actions.

Hope this helps give you a perspective that might not be evident from all the FUD that's being promoted on the forums.


Best Regards,
Ned"

Rest well Pentax DSLR owners. :-)

This IS an irrational "Anger Rant" so forgive me for my excesses here...

As "Ned" does not wish to post directly and is using Lance as his spokesman, I would like to bring in my 2 cents worth here.

First of all, since I am no longer sponsored by Pentax, I find it ludicrous that for the reasons given to me for our parting of ways, i.e. "Sharing NDA info with the public at large" (which I never did in fact) that "Ned" has gone ahead and done that which I was accused of. Perhaps what he has stated is not an NDA issue, but nor was what I shared a breach of my NDA.

Now that I have addressed that issue, here is what I have to say about Pentax. This is addressed directly to Ned. I have decided to stay with Pentax for now, as it has performed admirably in most applications and has done an astounding job specifically with the K20D's.

RH has never used his gear professionally as I have, therefore avoid his critiques like the plague. End of Story! I will be using the Pentax for the "Absolute" Vodka campaign if and when I get the go ahead. I will not allow Pentax France to announce this information for their Press Kit even though Pentax France has asked to be informed of my usage professionally of their products. I share info with them with the caveat that they cannot use info to promote their products. What bothers me profoundly is that Pentax are benefitting by my commendations of their products even though I am no longer sponsored by them.

Just to put things in another perspective. I chose Pentax. Pentax did not choose me. I will stay with Pentax as long as they produce products that I can use confidently and are at the cutting edge of the technologies available for my needs. When and if that ceases, I will change brands.

Sorry for this rant, but since Mr.Howard at Popular Photography complained about me to Pentax about alleged NDA postings on their forum, I am still not over the fact that Pentax could not stand up against their threats and dropped me for short term gains. I won't even go in to how many e-mails I have received from around the world from Ex Nikon and Canon users that changed their systems to Pentax because of my endorsements of their camera bodies etc. The value of that alone could buy scores of pages of advertising. I know the value of endorsements as our Ad Agency has a sector that specializes in Athlete endorsements. Believe me, what Nike or Fila pay for sponsorships dwarfs what Pentax offered me in our business relationship. If you have any doubts about the power of endorsements Ned, just do a Google search of my name in parenthesis "Benjamin Kanarek" and see what the response is!

Yes Ned...The Maverick in me is saying that I am still really pissed off...

Ben

[regken]

Yes Ned...The Maverick in me is saying that I am still really pissed off...

Ben

And rightly so. Your dismissal was one of many conservative and short sighted moves that make me doubt Pentax's ability to implement a niche marketing program.

[roentarre]

I seriously do not understand why Ben was dismissed by this company. I regularly go to his site for seeing his new inspirations and trend of fashion. Normally I would not link his status to pentax as a brand.

I am even more impressed that Ben is still hanging around and using pentax product. He is a man that sticks to his belief and practice it as he says it.

[thibs]

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of that. Under those conditions I retract my statements regarding the 17-70.

You're welcome

I still stand by my statements regarding the 16-50 and 18-250. As far as Ned saying it was built to Pentax specs, that is not what Chris reported. If that is what he said that makes total sense and I fully agree with that approach. The specs could be nothing more than "Put the Pentax name on it", or more extensive.

Let's say that at least they changed the barrel to Pentax looking, that one is for sure. If I remembe well the number of aspherical or low dispersion elements was different as well which would indeed point to "Pentax specs". I do not know (anymore) where to check the veracity of that statement however.

As for the 16-50, they were clearly QC problem but as far as I know this has been fixed.