[Kunzite]

There is a price to be paid for progress, and some of us will have to pay it (yes, I will have my contribution). Otherwise we won't have* fast and accurate AF, excellent optics, better build quality; otherwise all we'd have would be "old Tamrons". And Pentax would be forever stuck as a second-rate manufacturer.
I recognize the need for affordable products - how could I not? But people wanting affordable products should also recognize the need for higher end ones. They would eventually benefit from it, too, when technology which can only be developed in high margin products will trickle down to the more affordable ranges, or when high-end products would age and get cheaper, available second hand, etc.

Oh, and - though Jimmy won't read this - if I'm not mistaken, Pentax being "the poor man's Leica" never meant that Pentax is cheap... just that it offers some Leica-like qualities at normal prices. If I'm not mistaken, Pentax' high-end telephoto lenses were never cheap.

* the D FA* 70-200 testing for those qualities barely begun... but first impressions are positive

[monochrome]

Big margin means small sales, small margin means big sales.

Margin is not related to sales volume, nor to price.

Big margin can be created by having lousy, cheap components and selling at a slightly lower price - which would satisfy a certain segment of the product buying population.

Neither are sales volume and total profit directly related.

Ricoh has abandoned the Hoya practice of dumping in the USA at brand-destroying prices, pre-existing inventory acquired in a leveraged buyout . Your price expectations are a legacy of an unhappy past.

[Rondec]

Margin is not related to sales volume, nor to price.

Big margin can be created by having lousy, cheap components and selling at a slightly lower price - which would satisfy a certain segment of the product buying population.

Neither are sales volume and total profit directly related.

Ricoh has abandoned the Hoya practice of dumping in the USA at brand-destroying prices, pre-existing inventory acquired in a leveraged buyout . Your price expectations are a legacy of an unhappy past.

There also has to be a difference between a brand new design with components never used by Pentax before versus designs that are ten to fifteen years old with R and D paid for long ago.

[JimmyDranox]

As I have said before, there is the possibility that I'm wrong. And I consider that the answers from Monochrome and Rondec really has valid point.

In fact, what I have expressed is just my opinion, that for a non OS lens, the price of Pentax 70-200 is to high. Lets hope that this lens will met your expectations.

[monochrome]

As I have said before, there is the possibility that I'm wrong. And I consider that the answers from Monochrome and Rondec really has valid point.

In fact, what I have expressed is just my opinion, that for a non OS lens, the price of Pentax 70-200 is to high. Lets hope that this lens will met your expectations.

They've already lowered the pre-order price $500 in the USA, to $1,800. How low do you want them to go?

Since it will ship very soon we'll know very soon. We should hope - understanding that ILIS has no advantage over IBIS at less than 300mm - Pentax has invested the cost savings in other improvements to make a lens better than others at the $1.800US price point.

[slip]

the more they sell, the cheaper they can make them just like other product manufacturers.

randy

[jatrax]

In fact, what I have expressed is just my opinion, that for a non OS lens, the price of Pentax 70-200 is to high.

I don't understand this.
Canon 70-200 f/ 2.8 $1,949 (after $150 rebate)
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 $1,896 (after $50 rebate)
Pentax 70-200 f/2.8 $1,796 (pre-order price, so sure to come down after awhile)

How can you say Pentax is too expensive? Those are actual B&H prices as of right now.

[JimmyDranox]

They've already lowered the pre-order price $500 in the USA, to $1,800. How low do you want them to go?

Since it will ship very soon we'll know very soon. We should hope - understanding that ILIS has no advantage over IBIS at less than 300mm - Pentax has invested the cost savings in other improvements to make a lens better than others at the $1.800US price point.

Personally, I don't want anything. I just talk about a competitive price for the Pentax FF lenses, on par with the K-1 price. Lets not forget, the R&D expenses for new parts was also made for this camera. And even that this prices are not effecting me, I will love to see Pentax prospering. Unlike our mate Kunzite, who was recommending me almost an year ago to change the system if I don't agree with Ricoh price strategy.

A price strategy in the line of K-1, and the K-3 Silver, which was launched at an totally unexpected low price, considering the former Silver editions, is a better one, from my point of view. Especially, that Pentax has to gain market shares first, and after that, to make profit. We must consider that the market is shrinking, and is very hard to move a big number of people from Canon to Pentax. But, for a while, Nikon users, disappointed by fail after fail, are a good target. But not for long.

If Pentax will try to make profit before making some market share gains, will be a bad strategy, in my opinion.

[crussellsprout]

Canon 70-200 f/ 2.8 $1,949 (after $150 rebate)
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 $1,896 (after $50 rebate)
Pentax 70-200 f/2.8 $1,796 (pre-order price, so sure to come down after awhile)

How can you say Pentax is too expensive? Those are actual B&H prices as of right now.

Well to be fair the earlier comment was regarding the price for a non-OIS lens, and B&H does also advertise the non-IS Canon 70-200 f/2.8 at $1249, which is substantially cheaper.

I don't know how the lens performance differs between the Canon IS and non-IS versions, however. Apparently the non-IS version has a different, older coating, and I don't know if it has the same level of weather/dust resistance.

Well to be fair the earlier comment was regarding the price for a non-OIS lens, and B&H does also advertise the non-IS Canon 70-200 f/2.8 at $1249, which is substantially cheaper.

I don't know how the lens performance differs between the Canon IS and non-IS versions, however. Apparently the non-IS version has a different, older coating, and I don't know if it has the same level of weather/dust resistance.

It released in 1995! Pentax will release in 2016. The price always drop annually. Comparing Pentax 70-200 and Canon 70-200 non OIS is ridiculous. Pentax 70-200 is the most recent 70-200.

[jatrax]

Well to be fair the earlier comment was regarding the price for a non-OIS lens, and B&H does also advertise the non-IS Canon 70-200 f/2.8 at $1249, which is substantially cheaper.

I don't mind being fair. But fair would seem to be to compare the current flagship lenses not a vintage antique. The Pentax FA*80-200 f/2.8 was introduced in 1994, that would seem to be the best comparison to the older Canon, not the current flagship.

All kinds of things can be brought up to bolster an argument. I prefer facts. The fact is, at B&H today, the Pentax 70-200 is cheaper than the Nikon or Canon equivalents despite both the other brands having been out awhile and dropped in price and despite the price being lowered by current rebates. So anyone claiming the opposite should provide some other facts to dispute that, not vague claims or allusions to vintage glass, or gray market pricing.

[RobA_Oz]

Personally, I don't want anything. I just talk about a competitive price for the Pentax FF lenses, on par with the K-1 price. Lets not forget, the R&D expenses for new parts was also made for this camera. And even that this prices are not effecting me, I will love to see Pentax prospering. Unlike our mate Kunzite, who was recommending me almost an year ago to change the system if I don't agree with Ricoh price strategy.

A price strategy in the line of K-1, and the K-3 Silver, which was launched at an totally unexpected low price, considering the former Silver editions, is a better one, from my point of view. Especially, that Pentax has to gain market shares first, and after that, to make profit. We must consider that the market is shrinking, and is very hard to move a big number of people from Canon to Pentax. But, for a while, Nikon users, disappointed by fail after fail, are a good target. But not for long.

If Pentax will try to make profit before making some market share gains, will be a bad strategy, in my opinion.

Well, there's a bit of a conflict in all that, mainly that the R&D costs have to be met somewhere, and the usual strategy for new products is to recover those costs as soon as possible, and the price will fall thereafter. Even having a fairy godmother like the non-Pentax majority of Ricoh isn't an excuse for not following that pattern of pricing. Early adopters are the ones who pay the price - I know, because I've been one for the *istD, the K20D, the K-5 and the K-3 - and it doesn't seem to have done the brand any harm in the process. You can always argue that, in each case a greater market share may have been gained by not doing so, but it's not the sort of experiment you can perform, particularly in retrospect. You can also argue that Sony does just that (Godwin's Law variation, I know) but Ricoh isn't Sony and isn't likely to be, either. Product cycles are too short to be constantly playing loss leader, especially if you're coming from the back of the pack.

[crussellsprout]

I don't mind being fair. But fair would seem to be to compare the current flagship lenses not a vintage antique. The Pentax FA*80-200 f/2.8 was introduced in 1994, that would seem to be the best comparison to the older Canon, not the current flagship.

All kinds of things can be brought up to bolster an argument. I prefer facts. The fact is, at B&H today, the Pentax 70-200 is cheaper than the Nikon or Canon equivalents despite both the other brands having been out awhile and dropped in price and despite the price being lowered by current rebates. So anyone claiming the opposite should provide some other facts to dispute that, not vague claims or allusions to vintage glass, or gray market pricing.

The Canon non-IS lens is still in production so I wouldn't call it an antique per se, even though the design is not that recent, but I understand your stance on this.

This analysis indicates that the optical performance of the Tamron 70-200 is somewhere in between the Canon non-IS and IS II lenses -- let's hope the Pentax coating and tweaks have made it even better optically
Just the Lenses: The Great 200mm Shootout

[monochrome]

The Pentax lens should cost more than the OIS Canon and Nikon competitors. OIS has little to no benefit at FL less than 300mm vs. IBIS. Consequently there should be no comparison price point for the lens. It should be priced as a new design, to recover initial costs, then reduced to achieve sales targets once the early adopter demaned is exhausted.

[Winder]

It really depends on the image quality of the D-FA* 70-200mm. IF the lens is as good across all focal lengths as the samples have shown it is an excellent lens and better than the Canon option. Until we know how good the IQ is and how fast and accurate the AF is we really can't judge, but so far it looks like a lens that is well worth what they are asking.