[clackers]

. It may actually be a "mixed calculation" model where cameras are sold at super attractive prices to reap in the money on the lenses.

There we go, someone who gets it! 😀

This can't work at the consumer end, as Canikon have discovered, because typically the owner never goes past the kit lens with the hood on backwards.

It can work with the K-1 and the 645Z - the buyers have a different mentality.

---

Last edited by clackers; 12-22-2016 at 12:40 AM.

[MJKoski]

I am writing from customers perspective who has seen performance from both versions - identifical. Marketing principles are marketing principles and Ricoh gotta to what they gotta do to get some $ out of it. But from customer's perspective I am being fooled here. Basic customer does NOT care a **** about marketing and who gets the $$$$, (s)he only cares about the price. Price MUST be validated in some way and here it does not happen. D-FA 15-30 does not deliver anything to be worth 100% more. Pro gets what pro needs for successful gig, not so for everyone.

Nikon 19mm PC-E had dubious reception initially as it was priced in insane way, however it is proven that it delivers - it is the best WA lens ever made for DSLR cameras from IQ standpoint allowing maximum shift wide open with super good results.

[Rondec]

No, the Pentax version should be cheaper as it is lacking the OS mechanism of the Tamron.

In what world does one pay more to get less?

This is not to say that IBIS is worse than OS, I don't believe that for a second, but part of the beauty of IBIS is that it allows simpler lenses.

I understand the "economy of sales" argument but the same argument applies to cameras and Pentax manages to produce bargain offers here. It may actually be a "mixed calculation" model where cameras are sold at super attractive prices to reap in the money on the lenses.

Here is to hoping that the initial pricing for the 2.8 zooms is not going to last forever (I understand it already moved a bit) and that Pentax will be able and willing to support more attractive lens prices in the future.

I thought the Pentax version probably had the OS mechanism, it was just locked into place and not enabled for the K mount version of the lens.

That said, I don't see any way that the Pentax version of the lens could be cheaper than the Tamron version of the lens. Assuming Pentax has some sort of mark up and distribution costs, it wouldn't make sense that they could price it less than the Tamron versions.

Be that as it may, probably the biggest thing is that Pentax has a certain number of units a year that they want to move and clearly they are doing so at current pricing. If sales slow enough, they probably would consider some reduction in price, although I doubt it would ever be cheaper than the Tamron 15-30.

[Kunzite]

IMHO removing features from a product is an added cost.

[MJKoski]

Sure is. But average customer does not care. All points are valid that costs are higher from manufacturer side of things. Customer side is totally different world. Unless customer = brand loyalist defending some absurd point why end user should pay extra for nothing. Only Leica is able to pull it off in camera business. Maybe some MF brands as well.

[clackers]

I am writing from customers perspective .

But that's so obvious.

What customer wants to pay more?

[MJKoski]

Exactly. User Experience consist of too many things for most companies to realize. Simple things like proper lens carrying case would have caused more positive feelings at this price point. But no, even the box is Tamron copy. Nikkor 14-24 is sold with heavy duty carrying case for example. Most Audi models share basic frame with VW cars but have different set of features and styling. Pentax could have provided something little extra with 15-30.

[Rondec]

Exactly. User Experience consist of too many things for most companies to realize. Simple things like proper lens carrying case would have caused more positive feelings at this price point. But no, even the box is Tamron copy. Nikkor 14-24 is sold with heavy duty carrying case for example. Most Audi models share basic frame with VW cars but have different set of features and styling. Pentax could have provided something little extra with 15-30.

From Pentax's standpoint, I think the "extra" they offer is that the rebadged Tamron lenses work seamlessly with the K-1, including having built in lens profiles, which I am sure is not available with Tamron versions in other mounts.

That probably isn't enough since most of us are RAW shooters and there would be bound to be a profile in Lightroom, but I suppose it is worth something. But certainly, Sigma has had issues with their lenses and a variety of mounts with auto focus since they reverse engineer everything.

[awscreo]

I think what people would really love is something like a 16-35 f4 for a reasonable amount. I'd be very excited about it, since I don't really need 2.8 for landscapes and I already have a 2.8 Uwa for astro. Can't wait to see the new primes next year, a 50 1.4 would be an awesome upgrade for me

[MJKoski]

True, getting filter solution for 15-30 ramps up the price another 1000$ (with proper kit). Been there, done that - Wonderpana. But Wonderpana filter quality is questionable. I think I will try Haida 150mm kit as it has adapters for multiple lenses as well.

[normhead]

How does it compare to the Nikon 14-24 or Canon 16-35,? The mindless trolls clearly didn't check that out.

So Pentax is not allowed to charge high prices for their gear but the other Manufacturers are? I see how this works.

People really need to do their homework. If you don't like it, go buy your Sigma body or your Tamron body and save all the money you want. What is with folks being into a brand and then complaining stuff is cheaper elsewhere. Folks are trying got turn Pentax into some kind of bargain basement brand.

Anyway , from this corner, thanks but no thanks. Go buy your Canon 6D or your Nikon D610, and your Tamron 15-30, It's not sweat off anybody's back here.

What is the freaking problem?

When I bought myK-1, Ilook at the cost of the 15-30, the 25-70 and the 70-200 and to myself, "self, you can have a great time with this camera if you never buy any of those lenses." I did that before I bought my K-1, clearly other folks were less diligent.

I lived 50 years of camera ownership with a 50 1.8 and no other fast glass, nothing even 2.8. Now all the sudden everyone has to have 2.8 glass. Learning to live with what you can afford might be a better option.

Let's write it into the constitution. 2.8 glass should be an inalienable right. Lets have folks turning up at thee welfare office to get their 2.8 vouchers.

Just where is this going?

[MJKoski]

Are you aware how good 16-35/2.8 III is? By far the best WA zoom yet. It has earned its price on hi-MP bodies. Nikkor is their own brand glass be it as good or bad as it may be (perfectly comparable to Penron IQ in actual use). And, Nikkor's construction is way up from plastic Penron.

You can keep your trolls in your pocket, I have paid up the full price (a bit over $2000 here) for the glass and filters (another questionable sum) thank you.

[Rondec]

My overall philosophy is just to ask the question whether or not I need a lens -- that is to say, do I need the focal length and is there a cheaper substitute out there. If the answer is in the affirmative, then it doesn't really matter if there are cheaper options in other mounts, I just have to deal with it.

It probably feels better to pro rate the lens cost -- thinking about it as cost over years used or photos made -- rather than an absolute cost. My experience with buying cheap glass is that it is cheaper in the short term, but I also tend to sell it and "move up" over time. Better just to start with a lens that I can be satisfied in the long term.

[normhead]

Are you aware how good 16-35/2.8 III is? By far the best WA zoom yet. It has earned its price on hi-MP bodies. Nikkor is their own brand glass be it as good or bad as it may be (perfectly comparable to Penron IQ in actual use). And, Nikkor's construction is way up from plastic Penron.

You can keep your trolls in your pocket, I have paid up the full price (a bit over $2000 here) for the glass and filters (another questionable sum) thank you.

SO you have a lens I can't even afford and you're on here whining about it. What a baby. Paying what you think is too much for a lens doesn't give you the right to whine. Have a bit of consideration for others.

[Kunzite]

But that's so obvious.

What customer wants to pay more?

I don't want to pay more. Obviously. Not so obvious - I don't want to pay less either. Because I'm receiving less.

From a certain point of view (and many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view ), getting the rebadged Tamrons is a way of paying less - compared to what we would pay for OEM versions; and consequently, we're getting less (value compared to the discounted Tamrons "originals", etc.) because of it.