Pentax HD PENTAX D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW Lens 21330 B&H

Well, Pentax DFA* 70-200 f2.8 is quite cheaper than Canon and Nikon's 70-200. Both were released in 2009 and 2010. Pentax is $100 cheaper then both brands. How could this happen? Does Pentax gonna compete them with the price?

For 150-450, the price was already dropped from $2500 to $1700 within few months which is quite surprising.


+Btw the reason of delaying 70-200 is that they needed to change the mechanic design for better optical quality so you might see little bit different image quality from new one.
Source: SLRCLUB, ??? ???? ?? ???? (Need to translate first)

[Venom3300]

Frankly the release price on prntaxes doesnt seem to matter for anyone other than people who preorder. The prices always seem to drop substantially within months.

[hsteeves]

does Tamron have a K-mount version of their 150-600? Nice to see the price of the 70-200 but it should be less than the CaNikon versions it doesn't have IS/VR, does it?

[Mikesul]

Sorry. Tamron does not make the 150-600 in K-mount. It is a nice lens.

does Tamron have a K-mount version of their 150-600? Nice to see the price of the 70-200 but it should be less than the CaNikon versions it doesn't have IS/VR, does it?

Well, it will take times to see new lens from third party

[JimmyDranox]

The real competitor of D FA* 70-200 f/2.8, is Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 non stabilized, which is less than 800 US$, and can be found in many stores. The rest, Canon, Nikon, are stabilized lenses, and everyone understand why they are more expensive. So, the Pentax version was extremely expensive at almost 2500 $, more expensive than any other 70-200 f/2.8 lens in production today. So, anyone who is not an absolute fanboys has a legit question. Why? And even at the new price, of less than 1800 $, is still expensive, if we compare it with the prices of Sigma and Tamron with OS.

Ricoh is risking to hurt the selling of K-1, if the new lenses made to support it, will be perceived as too expensive by to many existing Pentax users. Of course, some people will not care about those prices, and they will buy K-1 and these new lenses whatever the cost. But I don't think that Ricoh had invested 4 years of R&D, and many millions, to sell his new FF line only to 5-10% of existing users, and maybe to a small number from other branches.

Now, I wonder what is in the mind of those people who had payed 2500$ for D FA 150-450mm, to see that if they have waited a few month, they could spare 750 $ ? For sure, I don't wanna be in their shoes. And that dramatic drop in price made so soon can also hurt the sale of K-1, and other new products, because such big drop are not something new in Pentax land. And a lot of people here has already express their intend to buy K-1, but not now. After the first big price drop, which they think will be in not a long time, maybe this autumn.

I have said it before, that not good. Not for us, not for Ricoh.

[tjstimbo]

Interesting about the price drop! I have a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 non-stabilized version and also a Sigma 150-500 stabilized, I'm hoping both will work nicely with the K1. Only perceived disadvantage is that the 1.4 teleconverter doesn't work unless one is in manual mode.

Tim

[Kunzite]

The real competitor of D FA* 70-200 f/2.8, is Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 non stabilized, which is less than 800 US$, and can be found in many stores. The rest, Canon, Nikon, are stabilized lenses, and everyone understand why they are more expensive.

I don't.
All right, the Canon and Nikon have more glass elements (23 and 21) versus the Pentax (19), due to the IS. But even so, the Pentax is optically as ambitious, with no less than 8 special glass elements (vs. 6 for the Canon and 7 for the Nikon). Though of course we can't really compare elements count.
And I expect it to be significantly better in every aspect (but being lightweight) than the poor old Tamron.

By the way, on the other forum there's one happy D FA* 70-200 owner... very impressed with the lens.

[JimmyDranox]

I don't.
All right, the Canon and Nikon have more glass elements (23 and 21) versus the Pentax (19), due to the IS. But even so, the Pentax is optically as ambitious, with no less than 8 special glass elements (vs. 6 for the Canon and 7 for the Nikon). Though of course we can't really compare elements count.
And I expect it to be significantly better in every aspect (but being lightweight) than the poor old Tamron.

By the way, on the other forum there's one happy D FA* 70-200 owner... very impressed with the lens.

You are not tired to say the same thing for almost an year, about those fantastic optical quality, that you didn't see it, and without one real comparison with other lenses?

And by the way, if you know so much, can you tell us why that big price drop? They have reduced the number of elements?

[BigMackCam]

Sorry. Tamron does not make the 150-600 in K-mount. It is a nice lens.

No, they don't make it yet. However, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Pentax-branded / optimised version of it in the future. It's a very good lens if reviews are to be believed. I'm looking at this lens in Sony A-mount for FF, and if it was available in K-mount I'd consider it for my Pentax APS-C cameras too...

[RobA_Oz]

Why buy a Mini Cooper, when you can buy a Kia Rio? They both have four wheels and headlights. One is not "better" than the other, but they're quite different in user experience, so one will suit some people and not others. The unspoken assumption by some, when these price/performance arguments crop up is that some people are simply more gullible and will pay more for perception (read "status"). It isn't always true, and not enough users of the DFA* 70-200 are around to say what they think of it, let alone to compare it with the Tamron, so why attempt to say one way or the other?

I'm sure the Tamron suits some people. I've got an FA*80-200/2.8, so I'm not in the market for either of the lenses being "compared" here. A little less judgment of other people's motives or intelligence might not hurt.

[mee]

Frankly the release price on prntaxes doesnt seem to matter for anyone other than people who preorder. The prices always seem to drop substantially within months.

This is true. And anyone who has been around Pentax for the past few years should know that goes without saying. There is always an inflated initial price and 6-12 months later it trails off. Don't take the initial price as the value of the lens. There is headroom in there for them to lower the price.. after about a year, I find that is the actual price of the lens/camera body as prices seem to stabilize then.

[Kunzite]

You are not tired to say the same thing for almost an year, about those fantastic optical quality, that you didn't see it, and without one real comparison with other lenses?

And by the way, if you know so much, can you tell us why that big price drop? They have reduced the number of elements?

Since you're still going on about how the Pentax can only compete with the old Tamron i.e. the cheapest 70-200 f/2.8 you could possibly find (cheaper than Tokina's f/4, or Canikon's current f/4s), it's a pot calling kettle situation I'm not the unreasonable one here.
And for the record, I was talking about ambitious optical design which I can easily support (the old Tamron by the way has 2 SLD elements). The Tamron doesn't impress in build quality either. Or autofocus.

No, I can't tell you why they have a large discount for the 150-450 in the U.S. (but not Europe - which is where I would buy it). I can't tell you why the 24-70 has a better price on the other side of the pond either. They might be trying to buy market share in the U.S., at our expense, who knows?
But you do realize it's a different lens than the D FA*, and even so it's nowhere near to "less than 800 US$", right?

[derekkite]

Since you're still going on about how the Pentax can only compete with the old Tamron i.e. the cheapest 70-200 f/2.8 you could possibly find (cheaper than Tokina's f/4, or Canikon's current f/4s), it's a pot calling kettle situation I'm not the unreasonable one here.
And for the record, I was talking about ambitious optical design which I can easily support (the old Tamron by the way has 2 SLD elements). The Tamron doesn't impress in build quality either. Or autofocus.

No, I can't tell you why they have a large discount for the 150-450 in the U.S. (but not Europe - which is where I would buy it). I can't tell you why the 24-70 has a better price on the other side of the pond either. They might be trying to buy market share in the U.S., at our expense, who knows?
But you do realize it's a different lens than the D FA*, and even so it's nowhere near to "less than 800 US$", right?

It may be that Ricoh is profitable at those prices. The first production of 150-450 seemed to sell reasonably well, now they drop the price.

A while ago I was shopping for an 11*17 printer with duplex option. Not a high volume big machine. Ricoh had one that was very well equipped for almost half the price of the nearest competitor. There was no comparison.

A series of very nice high quality zoom lenses along with the K1 makes for a very compelling package. Especially for the price.

Maybe they are profitable at $727 for a K3ii. Maybe the K1 will be profitable on a second run at less than $1500.

[monochrome]

It could be that the expected drop has been priced in already, like K-1.