[normhead]

Assuming that they are identical and produced by the same company (Tamron), with Pentax, we are paying more for a lens with less of a warranty and similar track record as far as QC goes. I wish we had alternatives.

People keep assuming... when are you going to start some speculation about "assuming they aren't" You should be an equal opportunity assumer.

[reh321]

Yesterday with my K-3. DA 55-300 PLM (the exif says ƒ8 but probably ƒ11.)


It wouldn't focus on his feathers, but no problem focusing on his head, in direct sunlight. I was impressed.

What? You guys never have direct sun in B.C.? I've heard that about the coast, but not where you live.

A black bear might be tough however.

Nice picture.

The lens just knew you were supposed to be focusing on the head {eye} anyway or someone would complain about that.

[FozzFoster]

Hey - so I'm hoping to double-check a couple details for the announcements..

The video will be played here: CP+2020 | RICOH IMAGING
Will the video be all in Japanese you think? or maybe subtitled in English?

Could someone see if I did my conversion correct for Mountain Standard Time (MST) - I think I need to tune in at 9 PM tonight, because then it will be 12 noon the next day in Japan?

Thanks!

[bertwert]

Could someone see if I did my conversion correct for Mountain Standard Time (MST) - I think I need to tune in a 9 PM tonight, because then it will be 12 noon the next day in Japan?

Thanks!

That's what I came up with...

[bladerunner6]

Is that all you can think of? Honestly take half a second to consider that thought.

How about a Pentax quality 250-600 5.6 for over 7 grand on eBay?
Has anyone actually shown that a 150-600 from Tamron/Sigma gives better IQ than Ia DA 150-450 enlarged. There was a debate awhile ago. results were not conclusive.

Pentax is somewhat limited in that they really won't go over 5.6 for lenses unless they absolutely have to for other reasons, like the DA 55-300 PLM needing lighter focusing element for the PLM motor. Those cheap 600mm lenses are ƒ6.3. I'd miss more than half my images with such a lens.

Or possibly, Pentax market share wouldn't get them enough sales to make money in that range.

But the most likely scenario, the places where Sigma and Tamron cut corners are not places where Pentax is willing to cut corners. Meaning if Pentax was to make that kind of glass, it still wouldn't appeal to people for whom price is the main consideration.

The Pentax 150-450 with the 1.4 TC is ƒ8, still manageable for the AF system. That gives you 630mm ƒ8.

It's always amusing when people compare Pentax product to that made by companies who's whole business model is to undercut the price of OEM product. If Pentax could compete with them, well, that's not part of the Pentax plan, and Sigma and Tamron would be failing at protecting their own niche. The Pentax plan is top quality product for discerning individuals.
There are a lot of things I'd consider before making a statement like that. You chose the one that would be most damaging to Pentax's rep. SO what is it? You didn't think it through, or you're trying to say the worst thing about Pentax you can imagine?

Whether or not the 150-450 with TC has decent AF is a rather moot point for me and many other users. Thatcombination costs over $2500 right now. A G1 Tamron would be a $1000 or mores less expensive, lighter, faster and more elegant since it would not be two pieces.

The price difference alone is a critical difference for me. I can’t see myself spending $2500 plus on that combination but I might be able to plan and justify $1200 for a Tamron rebadge.

In any case, what do you think the announcements will be?

[Kunzite]

IMHO comparing modern lens coatings is every bit as useless as comparing modern foam filled running shoes. Adidas vs Nike results do not matter if one is not physically fit to run the run.

I will shield my lenses when there is need be they non-coated or X-brand coated. This works with small format and works with large format. Running amok with no lenshood and The Best Ever -coating is always going to be the inferior choice.

Better have something else than mere coating to make up for the price difference. Locally new Tamron 15-30 costs under 1k€ and Penron 1700€. Tamron 70-210/4 costs under 800€ and Penron 70-210/4 1299€.

If the 24-70 and 70-210 follow the same pattern as 15-30, they are 1:1 inside. I put one Penron 15-30 to pieces and found no real differences to Tamron teardown done by LensRentals.

Both Tamron and Penron 15-30 lenses will fog up inside when using them in sleet and snow for few hours. Pentax version should have at least AW level protection to make up for the high price. QC wise they are also the same story, I scored two brand new factory sealed decentered 15-30 Penron lenses in a row last October.

This is not bashing anything, just expecting for something extra for the extra money.

I have every right to expect usefull Pentax designed brand lenses after purchasing a total of five K-1 bodies (sold one and bricked one). I need Pentax bodies and their features for my projects, so no, I will not switch to CaSoNikon or FujiSonic again for no benefit.

I posted a link showing that the Tamron coating used on the 70-210 is inferior to the Pentax HD coating. That likely isn't Tamron's best coating (AX or how they're calling it), but neither is the HD (that would be ABC II).

Also, the HD coating is superior to SMC. This was proven, not merely claimed.

The Pentax version of the 70-210 is different than the Tamron - it has a focus limiter and internal baffles.
AW'ing a lens implies extensive changes to its barrel. There would be no point in a rebrand then.

You have no right to bash Pentax. You're not a terrorist keeping Pentax hostage and demanding a hefty ransom; you are a customer.

[btnapa]

People keep assuming... when are you going to start some speculation about "assuming they aren't" You should be an equal opportunity assumer.

I guess being cooped up indoors for a few months can do it to all of us. We start assuming or worse we start hallucinating!! Time for a break and a nice glass of Syrah from our friendly local winery.

[Kunzite]

I agree. Also Tamron gives you a six year warranty vs. Pentax one year.

That isn't true everywhere in the world.
Just like the price difference as seen in Europe isn't the same everywhere else.

[reh321]

Hey - so I'm hoping to double-check a couple details for the announcements..

The video will be played here: CP+2020 | RICOH IMAGING
Will the video be all in Japanese you think? or maybe subtitled in English?

Could someone see if I did my conversion correct for Mountain Standard Time (MST) - I think I need to tune in at 9 PM tonight, because then it will be 12 noon the next day in Japan?

Thanks!

According to my Q-7, it should be 7 hours and 52 minutes from now.

[Serkevan]

I posted a link showing that the Tamron coating used on the 70-210 is inferior to the Pentax HD coating. That likely isn't Tamron's best coating (AX or how they're calling it), but neither is the HD (that would be ABC II).

Also, the HD coating is superior to SMC. This was proven, not merely claimed.

If it's this link (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/HlsFf8wydH6dOyIykAjKmA) can you point to the specific comparison between coatings? Google translate is a mess, but it does say that the Tamron is better at f/4, clearly worse at f/5.6 and f/8 if it's right? Haven't seen anything about the coating differences. And yes, HD is better than SMC, particularly in the green-yellow region (from the Ricoh graphs).

The Pentax version of the 70-210 is different than the Tamron - it has a focus limiter and internal baffles.

Yeah, re-purposing the stabilizer switch removed one of the big "buts" the Tamron version got in a couple reviews - and the baffle probably helps with reducing flare (which was another of the problems). Honestly once the price goes down to ~900-1000€ it will be rightly priced IMO.

[Kunzite]

If it's this link (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/HlsFf8wydH6dOyIykAjKmA) can you point to the specific comparison between coatings? Google translate is a mess, but it does say that the Tamron is better at f/4, clearly worse at f/5.6 and f/8 if it's right? Haven't seen anything about the coating differences. And yes, HD is better than SMC, particularly in the green-yellow region (from the Ricoh graphs).

Yes, that's the review - not accurate in everything they say, but the coating difference is not that easy to get wrong
Scroll down, about 2/3rds there are two images comparing the coatings. Google translate works fine there.

[thibs]

There is never a time for that.[.

Agreed.

[thibs]

I hope it's the "limited" part

Or just the DC part

[Serkevan]

Yes, that's the review - not accurate in everything they say, but the coating difference is not that easy to get wrong
Scroll down, about 2/3rds there are two images comparing the coatings. Google translate works fine there.

If it's the images of the front elements, that's... less than scientific . Light transmittance and reflectivity are whack; for example I could make the D FA 28-105 look substantially worse than any of the pictures there with very slight angle variations. There aren't any images where the flare is prominent; a practical head-to-head test against the sun (or a static light source, to avoid angle variations during set up times) there would be great.


(In any case, it's obvious that the HD coating is very good, but it would be great to have definite proof that it's better, if only to kick some naysayers down a notch )

[SteveinSLC]

Norm, I'm not trying to bash Pentax.
Just trying to point out the reality of the market.
Not sure what the Pentax older 250-600 options have to do with anything. They aren't 7000 on eBay. I've been looking. Seem to be between 2500 and 4000.
I have a 150-450. I'm very happy with it. Used it two days ago to take marmot pictures.
I did also try it with various TCs. Both the Pentax one and the Tamron one. In neither case did I feel that the results with TC beat cropping. But that's my opinion only. And I don't have a 600 to compare.

But the reality is that you can get a G2 Tamron for for $1200. Well less than the $2000 for the 150-450. So you get more reach for less money. And it's probably a not as good as the Pentax from 150-450. But it's probably not too far off. The Sigma Sport is more. So closer cost-wise, but it still gives you more reach. The Sony equivalent is in line with the Pentax price, but from what I've heard, is outstanding, so probably beats the Pentax on most things other than weatherproofing.


I agree with you completely that Pentax philosophy seems to be high quality. On bodies, high value too, less so on lenses, with some exceptions. The 300PLM that we both like is one of those high quality/high value options. The 150-450 is not. It's high quality, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's a great value.

The point I was trying to make though is that the long lens market is small. And Pentax is a really small player in that already small market. I can't see where they would think it was a good business choice to spend resources on a long lens that would pull sales from an existing option. So while I personally would like a Pentax equivalent to the Tamron or Sigma, I just can't see them doing it.