[Wheatfield]

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?

You think this is acrimony. Just wait until it is in users hands.

---------- Post added Jan 29th, 2020 at 11:50 AM ----------

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.

economy of scale - Google Search

[SSGGeezer]

Same with the DA 55-300 PLM (which was also rated best in class on at least one site.)

As I know nothing but Pentax, I only know how good the lenses of Pentax are, but when I compare the IQ of some very good images my sister took with her very expensive Canon gear, I am convinced that I made the right decision for both value and IQ with less expensive (comparatively,) lenses from Pentax.


I think this one will be a huge hit even though the WR is the only real selling point to me as I love my FA* 80-200 enough to haul the weight.

---------- Post added 01-29-20 at 13:13 ----------

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.

Without knowing what you shoot and how, I wonder where this question is coming from? When in recent history has Ricoh/Pentax released what you might consider a budget priced Full frame lens? DO you shoot K-1 or are you an APSC user? If an APSC user, this lens will still work beautifully on a modern crop camera also. Do you want to buy one and are scared off due to price and need to go to Canikon?

[zapp]

The Pentax branding increases the price by a couple hundred. That’s just it.
Look and feel is Pentax, get an extra focus limiter and Pentax coating plus WR. Pentax has to pay Tamron for the design, so not an in house development cheap to build.
The lens is worth the price, there is no alternative next within its spec or price range.

[Wheatfield]

As I know nothing but Pentax, I only know how good the lenses of Pentax are, but when I compare the IQ of some very good images my sister took with her very expensive Canon gear, I am convinced that I made the right decision for both value and IQ with less expensive (comparatively,) lenses from Pentax.


I think this one will be a huge hit even though the WR is the only real selling point to me as I love my FA* 80-200 enough to haul the weight.

---------- Post added 01-29-20 at 13:13 ----------


Without knowing what you shoot and how, I wonder where this question is coming from? When in recent history has Ricoh/Pentax released what you might consider a budget priced Full frame lens? DO you shoot K-1 or are you an APSC user? If an APSC user, this lens will still work beautifully on a modern crop camera also. Do you want to buy one and are scared off due to price and need to go to Canikon?

This just a reiteration of why Pentax is now a brand rather than a company.
People who were attracted to Pentax because they were the cheap and cheerful company, quality on a budget and all that, feel betrayed now that a company that wants to turn a profit is at the helm.
We saw the same outrage when it was learned that the Tokina Opera version of the D FA* 50/1.4 was going to be sold for less than the similar Pentax lens.
Compared to the sheer volume of sales that Canon, Nikon or Sony create, Pentax is pretty much making one off products for the custom market.
Of course that is going to be expensive.

I've been reading the "wait til the price comes down before buying" mantra since I discovered the PDML nearly 25 years ago.
This is the Pentax user base. This is why Pentax is now a rump division of an office supply company rather than their own boss.

I've been waving Pom Poms for Pentax since 1987, this insistence that they lose money on every product they sell has always irked me.

[ffking]

Apologies if this has been said, but I would have thought, in view of lack of certainty expessed concerning coatings, that HD designation clearly signified Ricoh proprietary coatings rather than any old Tamron coating - or am I being naive?

[house]

If hd coatings are as good as Pentax claims I'd expect them to license/sell coatings to other manufacturers. I would make no sense to only use HD on the very limited Pentax production? I'm saying that I'd expect some of the other brands new coatings with fanciful names are actually hd coating?

[SSGGeezer]

People who were attracted to Pentax because they were the cheap and cheerful company, quality on a budget and all that, feel betrayed now that a company that wants to turn a profit is at the helm.

You see it in posts from folks who don't and probably will never buy new (Pentax) gear, or who have given up and feel the need for a mirrorless and overpriced lenses. I have bought two of four Pentax cameras new as well as a number of lenses. I referred to value, not cheapness, and if weight and WR become a priority for me, I will get one.

[FozzFoster]

only use HD on the very limited Pentax production?

They have before with the Aero Bright coatings, anyway:
About HD Coating / Lenses / Products | RICOH IMAGING

[Mikesul]

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.

Like Rondec, I own the other Tamron developed DFA lenses and I am very happy to have them. Price is an issue but it is rarely computed based on cost of manufacture alone. Other issues like run sizes and speed of return on investment, to name only a couple, determine price. If you love modern Pentax cameras you want these lenses. Price simply determines how many and how soon one can acquire them.

[monochrome]

I've been reading the "wait til the price comes down before buying" mantra since I discovered the PDML nearly 25 years ago. This is the Pentax user base. This is why Pentax is now a rump division of an office supply company rather than their own boss.

I've been waving Pom Poms for Pentax since 1987, this insistence that they lose money on every product they sell has always irked me.

Nailed it.

[monochrome]

Apologies if this has been said, but I would have thought, in view of lack of certainty expessed concerning coatings, that HD designation clearly signified Ricoh proprietary coatings rather than any old Tamron coating - or am I being naive?

HD denotes a proprietary coating formula and application process developed by predecessor companies and enabled when Ricoh made the necessary evaporator investment shortly after the acquisition.

[Kunzite]

I'm still waiting for asahiman or someone else to confirm if the D FA 70-210's coatings are indeed Ricoh Imaging's, or they just use their own labels for Tamron coatings (like they do with SDM).

[reh321]

I'm still waiting for asahiman or someone else to confirm if the D FA 70-210's coatings are indeed Ricoh Imaging's, or they just use their own labels for Tamron coatings (like they do with SDM).

I don't see that as important. This is one more lens available to us. That is fact. Period.

[FozzFoster]

I don't see that as important. This is one more lens available to us. That is fact. Period.

We shouldn't ask about specs as long as we have an option of another lens, eh? That doesn't sound right to me.

[normhead]

HD is a specific coating formula. If it's HD it's HD.