[Rondec]

If Pentax would have designed a 15-30 from the ground up how expensive would it be and how much better than the Tamron 15-30? Probably it would be a little better, but not sure how much better.

As to price, it is hard for me to say. Comparing pricing on the Pentax 70-200 to Tamron 70-200 (B and H pricing), the Pentax is at 1800 and the Tamron is 1200 after the mail in rebate. And the Tamron has VC in it while the Pentax doesn't. If Pentax had rebadged the Tamron, they would have a 1450 lens -- a savings of 350 over what the current price is.

I guess I would say in the long run, I hope Pentax does design more lenses in house. The 70-200 is the best lens I have used, while the 24-70 and 15-30 are both just very good, but certainly in absolute terms, using Tamron designs and manufacturing saved money over where lenses would priced if they were in house designs.

[Kunzite]

If Pentax would have designed a 15-30 from the ground up how expensive would it be and how much better than the Tamron 15-30? Probably it would be a little better, but not sure how much better.

I actually don't think it would've been possible - let's remember the very small initial production for the actual 15-30, of a mere 200 units per month. Even if that was a conservative estimation, I doubt that such small volumes could support developing and making such a high end lens, with any realistic price target in mind.

It's interesting, actually, how the 70-200 and 150-450 were (apparently) less problematic than a 15-30-ish ultrawide. Perhaps because they're very useful for APS-C, too?

I fully agree with more Pentax-developed lenses; and I can't wait to find out more details about the primes from the roadmap.

[Rondec]

I actually don't think it would've been possible - let's remember the very small initial production for the actual 15-30, of a mere 200 units per month. Even if that was a conservative estimation, I doubt that such small volumes could support developing and making such a high end lens, with any realistic price target in mind.

It's interesting, actually, how the 70-200 and 150-450 were (apparently) less problematic than a 15-30-ish ultrawide. Perhaps because they're very useful for APS-C, too?

I fully agree with more Pentax-developed lenses; and I can't wait to find out more details about the primes from the roadmap.

Don't you think part of it has to do with Pentax's lens catalog -- that is to say, Pentax has 70-200 lenses and other telephoto zooms, but no 15-30 f2.8 type lens in their past.

I would have thought the 24-70 f2.8 was more doable than the 15-30 and would probably sell a lot more copies, but I think they had their hands full at the time.

[Kunzite]

I think they are very much capable of designing their own 15-30-ish fast zoom. The 70-200 itself is a new design.

Perhaps they wanted a cheaper 24-70 than what would be possible with an in-house D FA* design?

[MJKoski]

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.

Of course I whine about this. If same lens can be had for 1400$ or $1000 (CaNikon) then what is $2000? That is a punishment for owning a lens when there are no other real options and disrespect for Scandinavian folks. And why did CameraStore TV note it the way they noted it?

[Kunzite]

You won't be able to understand why until you stop seeing it as a personal affront

[Class A]

I guess I would say in the long run, I hope Pentax does design more lenses in house.

+1

I have no trouble spending quite a bit of money on a superb lens. If Pentax develops a lens and I want it, I'll pay the price that Pentax thinks it needs to charge for their design.

In contrast, paying considerable more for a rebadge, compared to the original price, and being forced to do that because the original is not made available in K-mount, is just not right. Any way you spin it, it is a disadvantage to be a Pentaxian in this instance.

BTW, I don't believe "taking out the OS" actually incurs a cost. Most parts of the lens are still mass-produced and are the same for all versions. I'm sure a modern factory can manage to set up the production of a variant that excludes a certain mechanism or just disables it without incurring a cost that must be passed on to the customer. I do not accept arguments based on "economy of scale" considerations when a lens is produced in all sorts of mounts. Sigma and Tamron were able to produce K-mount versions of many of their lenses without asking for premium.

Perhaps Ricoh has to play this game to stay profitable but from a customer's perspective it is clearly unsatisfactory. I do not understand all the backlash MJKoski is receiving for an absolutely reasonable view. I often disagree with his frequent and loud complaining in general, but on this matter his complaint is a 100% justified, AFAIC.

[butangmucat]

Interesting about the 15-30 being on the worst list because of value per $.

My reading is that they are accusing for the general trend taking out lens IS and charge a premium. Though Sony does this the most, Pentax 15-30 was an easy target because there is a Tamron lens which was exactly the same except the lens IS. Probably the other reason is that Pentax had always been well-regarded for the bang for the buck.

I shoot both Sony and Pentax bodies, mainly on old FA and pre-FA Pentax (and other K-mount and M42) glass. Do agree that some contemporary Pentax glass are somewhat overpriced.

[Rondec]

I thought that the Tamron and the Pentax versions of the lens were supposed to be the same, it is just that the VC element is locked into place in the Pentax version. They certainly didn't just take that element out, did they?

I think the thing in the "old days" was that folks said one of the reasons for in body image stabilization was that it saved money, because you didn't need optical stabilization in all of your lenses (which could be pretty pricey). But if Pentax lenses without OS are the same as those of other brands with OS then that argument goes out the window.

[Kunzite]

BTW, I don't believe "taking out the OS" actually incurs a cost.

It definitely does.
They had to design parts to keep the OS element(s) in place, instead of the standard OS mechanism. They had to order, or make said parts in much smaller quantities than the standard OS mechanism.
They also had to adapt the lenses to fit and work with the K-mount (physical fitting/bayonet, aperture mechanism, electronics and firmware). This is a cost, too.

I do not understand all the backlash MJKoski is receiving for an absolutely reasonable view. I often disagree with his frequent and loud complaining in general, but on this matter his complaint is a 100% justified, AFAIC.

At which point should we consider his presence on this forum Pentax bashing?

As for "reasonable", what if this is the only way we could have a 15-30 f/2.8? If it's either this, or nothing?
Nobody's forced to buy Pentax, you know...

[RobA_Oz]

Thank heavens the rest of the review was favourable to Pentax, if all this time, effort and emotion could be expended on arguing about the one unfavourable aspect.

You Tube

You Tube

[MJKoski]

I think there is more to it what we know currently. I believe there is some kind of cartel against Pentax as Sigma suddenly dropped K-mount offerings, no Tamron lenses (previously there were) and others offer K-mount options very late if at all. ART lenses would shine with pixel shift and astro tracer.

And Zeiss is denying K-mount as well. Why? Zeiss lenses are hardly chart topping comets for any mount.

[Kunzite]

MJKosky: yes, there's such a cartel - a cartel of accountants which decided their companies won't make lenses if they can't sell X pieces

Thank heavens the rest of the review was favourable to Pentax, if all this time, effort and emotion could be expended on arguing about the one unfavourable aspect.

I do understand the customer point of view (being a Pentax customer myself, doh! ), we're getting less value for the money or rather, same value for more money.
But, that's life; there are also disadvantages of buying into a less popular system.

[clackers]

I think there is more to it what we know currently. I believe there is some kind of cartel against Pentax as Sigma suddenly dropped K-mount offerings, no Tamron lenses (previously there were) and others offer K-mount options very late if at all. ART lenses would shine with pixel shift and astro tracer.\.

Enough of these conspiracy theories, MJK.

Like the pricing of lenses, it's just economics.

You don't believe that, fine, don't believe it.

I simply can't afford the 15-30, good on you and its other owners, but at least I'm not bitter about it.

[awscreo]

I managed to cover all my lens bases for relatively small amount - 50 1.8 (120$), 14 2.8 (250$) and Tamron 70-200 (600$). While every piece of this kit has its flaws, it works for me personally and I'm fairly happy with it. I do have an issue with my Tamron lens, and trying to resolve it with Tamron USA currently, but it's not Pentax's fault honestly. K-1 gave me what I wanted - an affordable high tier full frame body. I can find ways to get the rest, or just settle with bargain offerings from other manufacturers. I do wish there's was a larger selection of native lenses, but maybe we all just need to wait. I'm sure Pentax has plans to fill all niches they have to fill, and then move to produce more affordable offerings. Might take a year or two, but I'm not going anywhere anyway. It sucks that native pro zooms are over priced (at least the re-branded ones). But I guess this was what they had to do to make the deal with Tamron work. Otherwise they'd be in sonys shoes - awesome bodies and no pro zooms to match with them until quite recently.