[Rondec]

Frankly, the whole rebranding argument is a load of nonsense.
It's a very capable lens which fills a long-awaited niche in the Pentax stable. Why is there so much acrimony?

Exactly.

The most important thing that makes this lens different from the Tamron 70-210 f4 mounted on a D810 is the presence of Pentax engineers in the development process of the Pentax version of this lens. This means that the auto focus and lens corrections will work as they are supposed to, out of the box, and if there are issues, Pentax will stand behind them to make them right.

I think most of this argument comes from a place of being upset that the opening price for this lens is as high as it is. That's an understandable feeling (we all want cheaper lenses), but it does miss the point of having another lens with fast auto focus and good performance in the lens line up.

I own the DFA 24-70 and 15-30, both of which are manufactured by Tamron. I paid at least a couple hundred dollars more for each one of those lense than what the Tamron version cost at the time. But honestly, there is never a day that I go out shooting with either of those lenses that I even think about that fact. I am only pleased with their performance, their presence in the line up, and glad for the photos that I have captured in my three to four years of owning both.

[Sandy Hancock]

I am glad for the photos that I have captured.

And that is something the Tamron version of these lenses can never offer to Pentaxians.
We need to get over it.

[TwoUptons]

And that is something the Tamron version of these lenses can never offer to Pentaxians.
We need to get over it.

I’m over it

But I will wait for the price to drop a bit, so I may miss the spring football shooting season...

-Eric

[normhead]

There is definitely a market for this lens. It will be great purchase for anyone in a position to buy one. The crazy thing from the naysayers are those who would be critical of Pentax if it weren't there. There are people for whom no matter what you do it's wrong. Tamron long ago proved with their 70-200 10 years ago they can make lenses as good as anybody's. The 70 200 compared to Canon and Nikon good, was just as good, the one caveat being build quality, and Pentax does Pentax build quality when they rebrand.

The negativity is just sad. I probably don't want this lens, but I'm happy for the people who have been waiting for it. Part of that being an understanding being, the fact it may not appeal to me personally doesn't mean their aren't people it does appeal to. It's not all about me. People trying to find something wrong with the lens should just get over themselves and be happy for the people who aren't inhibited by their persistent negativity.

[abraswell]

Why does this lens cost as much as the competitions stabilized offerings? Those lenses are that expensive BECAUSE of IS. Nikon doesn't offer a non-VR version of the 70-200/4, but Canon does. It's only $600.


Actually, I could ask this exact same thing about almost every Pentax FF lens.

[pres589]

The only issue I really have with this lens isn't about this specific lens at all; I worry that Ricoh/Pentax isn't well staffed in the optical design department and how resources are being allocated or available to create new lenses that will capture market interest.


I think this specific lens looks like a wonderful addition to the stable of glass available from Pentax. I could see crop-body shooters who are looking for something that's a step above the 55-300's in the IQ department available to them without going to the D-FA 70-200 f2.8 to save cost and weight. I could see folks with full-frame cameras going for this for the same reasons. I'm optimistic that there's more good glass coming to the k-mount ecosystem and I don't really care where bones come from as long as they're good lenses.

[monochrome]

Frankly, the whole rebranding argument is a load of nonsense.
It's a very capable lens which fills a long-awaited niche in the Pentax stable. Why is there so much acrimony?

Ego is a waste. As long as it is native K-mount what difference does it make?

[BigMackCam]

Why does this lens cost as much as the competitions stabilized offerings? Those lenses are that expensive BECAUSE of IS. Nikon doesn't offer a non-VR version of the 70-200/4, but Canon does. It's only $600.


Actually, I could ask this exact same thing about almost every Pentax FF lens.

Why are Canon and Nikon DSLR bodies more expensive than Pentax, yet they don't provide in-body IS while Pentax does? OK, they're beginning to (finally) with the new mirrorless platforms... but my, do you pay for them.

Still, the only people that can answer your question are Ricoh Imaging execs. No-one here has inside information on the production costs and pricing strategy, and there's absolutely zero benefit in theorising. The price is what the price is. Simple as that...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-29-2020 at 10:44 AM.

[normhead]

The only issue I really have with this lens isn't about this specific lens at all; I worry that Ricoh/Pentax isn't well staffed in the optical design department and how resources are being allocated or available to create new lenses that will capture market interest.

Does that matter? I have so many possible work around options, the best Pentax can do for me now is "nice to have". Have to have was taken care of years ago. I worry about the future of Pentax about as much as I worry about they well being of Hershey's when I buy a chocolate bar.

[FozzFoster]

The relevance of the 'is it a rebrand?' debate is important.
The debate is important, because people are already comparing the lens to the Canikon version of the lens.
People will be comparing it's optical performance, it's price, it's features, etc. with the Tamron's Canikon version.
That comparison is taken in quite a different light if they are two dissimilar lenses - but they are not dissimilar - literally the same optical formula.
Comparisons between lenses (like comparing the 55mm to the 50mm, or the FA 50mm to the DFA 50mm) has a use too, but that is a consideration in the comparison.

The comparison situation is very different when it's the same optical formula.
I do not believe a focus limiter, a baffle, or spray-on coatings change the optical characteristics as much as the freakin' optical formula.
To not call it a rebrand may lead people to think they are comparing two unique designs, but really they are not.
I believe we will be comparing the same lens with minor customized features.
As I mentioned, this isn't a bad thing. Pentax sells their designs too - good!
'Rebrand' isn't a dirty word.
I am excited for this lens and very well may add it to my kit, but I will like to compare an apple to an apple and not fool myself into thinking it's banana.

[normhead]

Why does this lens cost as much as the competitions stabilized offerings? Those lenses are that expensive BECAUSE of IS. Nikon doesn't offer a non-VR version of the 70-200/4, but Canon does. It's only $600.


Actually, I could ask this exact same thing about almost every Pentax FF lens.

Please learn to read spec sheets. Most Pentax lenses are WR or AW. That cost alone is probably + $100 minimum.
The reason the prices are different is almost certainly because they aren't the same lens. If they were exactly the same lens then you could compare. Within the same focal length, like 70-200 you can have different number of elements and groups, different coatings, different weights in their components, the focal length in no way determines the cost of the lens.

Pentax has chosen to go really heavy duty, a factor many are willing to pay for. So, I expect to pay a bit more. I'm paying for really good quality construction, durability and and WR, and I'm happy to do so. My lenses come home wet a good 25% of the time. And my very first zoom, years ago, became unusable because of mold.

But if you only shoot indoors or on bright sunny days, maybe you'r good with lenses that wouldn't spec out for me. Maybe you just aren't willing to pay for what Pentax has to offer. Nothing wrong with that. We each have our own experience and reasons for what we want.
My experience is many unintentional drops and a lot of wetness. Tough and WR is imperative.

I once dropped my K-3 and DA*60-250 from a tripod mount 5 feet off the ground onto a parking lot. It damages a couple of rubber seals. No structural damage, none of the main components needed replacing. The lens still worked, it was just harder to zoom than it should have been. The repair cost was about $200. I've seen a similar Canon lens break in half after a drop from 1/3 that height falling off a low bench. it wasn't deemed reparable. It's your money, your choice, but it's not simple as you make out.

After the drop the total cost of my 60-250 jumped to $1400 CAD, $1100 USD. Two Canon 70-200 F4s without stabilization would be $1200 USD. Do you feel lucky?

Of course the real cost to the Canon is much higher. The guy was paying $150 a day to guide his 4 day trip. The last 2 days he didn't have a telephoto. So add another $300 wasted dollars to the cost of the Canon. After my drop I continued to use my lens until I was ready to send it in. As I said, the zoom was bit stiff, but it was fully functional.

A cynic is ‘a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.‘ Oscar Wilde

For those who have nothing in this focal length, they have to weigh what it's worth them to have the use of the lens for a couple of years before the price drops. You can't necessarily say, that waiting for the price to drop is a good thing if four years down the line you've had use of the lens for 2 years instead of 4. For those of us with many other options in the same focal length, it's often worth waiting.

[volley]

Why does this lens cost as much as the competitions stabilized offerings? Those lenses are that expensive BECAUSE of IS. Nikon doesn't offer a non-VR version of the 70-200/4, but Canon does. It's only $600.


Actually, I could ask this exact same thing about almost every Pentax FF lens.

Forget the idea that the price is related to cost.

The initial selling price is set based on what Ricoh/Pentax marketing believes what people who want this lens quickly are willing to pay for it. These early adopters contribute significantly to the bottom line results of the company. And when they determine the lens is worth the price for them, then they will be happy shooters. Good for everyone.

If you think the lens isn't worth that much money for you, then wait some time. Price will go down and you may be a happy shooter a little later.

[BigMackCam]

Forget the idea that the price is related to cost.

The initial selling price is set based on what Ricoh/Pentax marketing believes what people who want this lens quickly are willing to pay for it. These early adopters contribute significantly to the bottom line results of the company. And when they determine the lens is worth the price for them, then they will be happy shooters. Good for everyone.

If you think the lens isn't worth that much money for you, then wait some time. Price will go down and you may be a happy shooter a little later.

I'd rather suggest that price is a result of many factors, cost being just one of them. But I agree with your general principle

We have to remember, Ricoh Imaging will sell relatively few units of this Pentax lens compared to the Tamron and OEM equivalents on other mounts. Pentax only has a small market share, and only a small portion of folks within the user base will need or want to buy this lens (actually, I think many will, but still relatively few in the grand scheme of things). Ricoh has to price the lens to make projected profits worthwhile. Otherwise, it may as well not bother... and then, none of us would benefit...

[biz-engineer]

The problem with the DFA 70-210 is the same problem as with cameras. The best camera is the one you have with you to take pictures. The best lens is the one you have with you. Now the DFA 70-210 isn't on the shelves yet, so all the talk about the difference between Tamy and Richo is waporware. The truth will emerge when people will start shooting with the new lens and post their pictures in the dedicated DFA 70-210 thread.

[normhead]

The problem with the DFA 70-210 is the same problem as with cameras. The best camera is the one you have with you to take pictures. The best lens is the one you have with you. Now the DFA 70-210 isn't on the shelves yet, so all the talk about the difference between Tamy and Richo is waporware. The truth will emerge when people will start shooting with the new lens and post their pictures in the dedicated DFA 70-210 thread.

And nothing anyone says before then is worth a rats derriere.
No one, absolutely no one predicted the DFA* 50 1.4 would be rated "best in class" by some sites.
Same with the DA 55-300 PLM (which was also rated best in class on at least one site.)

It does happen on occasion that the Pentax lens people wait for ends up being better than anything you can buy elsewhere. Not for every lens, but often enough.