[apemen]

There maybe a mistake

329$
21550 Pentax SMCP-DA 40mm f/2.8 ED Digital Auto Focus Limited Edition Lens for SLR Cameras

299$
Pentax | 40mm f/2.8 Limited Autofocus Lens for Digital | 21550

[falconeye]

$500 for a 40mm f/2.8.

There maybe a mistake [...] 299$

No, just old stock.
Buy your stuff now from old stock before it is too late.

[rparmar]

Price changes are confirmed. Wanted to draw attention to this so started a new thread.

[nanok]

update to my previous post, one month or so ago (#70 in this thread)
see inline

da* 16-50/2.8 20.695, #now somewhere at 24.000
da* 50-135/2.8 22.969, #now at 27.000
da* 60-250/4 29.925 #now at 33.000
dfa 100 macro 15.530 #from here bellow, about the same (no major change)
50/1.4 12 790
12-24/4 28 690

meanwhile, no major changes in the canon prices, except maybe for the 70-200/4 Is, now near 31000 (so still well bellow the 60-250/4, even more so, now)

canon:

100 macro 13.375
70-200/4 L 16.087 (almost half of 60-250, non-is)
70-200/4 L(IS) 29.482
17-55//2.8 (IS) 23.504
50/1.4 9.213
50/1.8 2.926 (note, this used to not matter, the pentax 50/1.4
was supposed to be almost as cheap, it never was here, but in
the us at least it was)
10-22/some-crap 20.310 (people say it's not the greatest, don't know..)

nikon:

50/1.4 7.990 (10 590 for the "G", which is in the class with our 55sdm, right?)
105/2.8 micro vr 20.823
17-55/2.8 dx blah 33.686 (ouch)
70-200/2.8 VR (can't find a normal one) 52.523
12-24/4 25.531 (but i hear it's "class leading")

sony (hey, why the hell not?)

50/1.4 11 790
70-200/2.8 59 990
100/2.8 macro 23 690
16-80 3.5-4.5 23 190

sorry, i am lost, the most confusing lineup i have ever seen.

edit: updated with tamron prices, for completeness (following falk's theory)

tamron (kmount)

90 macro 12 190
10-24/some-crap 12 590
17-50/2.8 11 390
70-200/2.8 20 690

canon mount

12 190
12 590
11 390
20 690

(identical)

so, pentax vs canon.. hmm, anybody selling a 40d? seriously, the only slight edge is on the 16-50/2.8, and i can "almost" buy it from tokina for cheaper (not sealed and so on, but neither is the 40d ), but other than that... ouch, what a beating.

pentax vs nikon: okay, now i know why most nikon shooters i see shoot third party or old glass, their premium glass is not cheap. otoh, the cheap crap (not shown here) is cheaper than most (is pentax dreaming the same?). however it's still better in some cases (considerably better), like the wide end, the fast 50's, and a few others.

i won't comment on sony, maybe i just didn't find a proper dealer or something. my head spins already. they seem well covered on the tele side, though (but not cheap)

i should look at oly too, but i've had enough (and i might be in danger to go oly if i do..)

so am i saying pentax shouldn't be twice as expensive as canon? hell yeah. i have in-body is? great, but i payed for it (in some form or another), and i made this choice knowing i will save money after, so i expect to be able to reasonably compare prices to the non-is versions of canikon (you can say it's not fair, it is: if you turn in-body stabilization into a "feature" that i have to pay on my body, after which i pay is-lens prices for each lens, instead of _choosing_ if i want to pay it for each lens, or want to pay _half_ the price and only get the excellent optics, i'll take the in-lens system 8 out of 10).

[brecklundin]

Another thought ...

With only 4 German (Zeiss, Leica, Voigtländer, Schneider; all expensive) and 7 Japanese (Hoya Pentax, Hoya Tokina, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sigma, Tamron) vendors, they can in a sort of Japan-Corporation collectively decide that lens prices are too low and increase them altogether. If this has happened, then there is little what we can do about

I once read that it is common practice in Tokyo for the leaders of various big corporations to meet regularly. Which coined the term Japan Corporation.

Actually, in the US that is NOT LEGAL...so if they want to keep selling their products here, then either they will need to stop this now or risk Federal sanctions and fines. Consumer advocacy organizations have waged battles over far less egregious issues and won than that level of collusion.

Something I have been trying to express in several threads is Hoya has a very questionable Minimum Advertised Price agreement that all retailers are required to sign in order to carry the Hoya brand products, I know filters for certain but it is not hard to extend this to other Hoya branded products. What that means is no retailer can advertised below a price set by Hoya...period. What is also means is higher end consumer prices since it is, at it's heart anti-competitive.

If you look around the web, the Pentax lens prices are beginning to standardize. I mean there is little to no variation from seller to seller. You might see the "add to cart to see price...it's too low to advertise" on many items. That seems to be a retailer's only refuge.

I have posted this before but Hoya's MAP agreement and policy were exposed on the filter front by a medium-larger online filter seller who has been at it for over 20yrs. The gory details are here:

Hoya Filters Marketing Agreement in USA

If you read the details of all the doco, it basically boils down to Hoya not uniformly enforcing the MAP policy. The side effect was this exposed the true reason why filters jumped in price later last year and earlier this year. Sellers could no longer advertise at the prices they had the day before, even for the same stock I think. I am not sure...

Now, I come over to Pentax for the very reason many point out...in-body stabilization and lenses of nice quality but at a price which does not reflect the added complexity of in-lens stabilization.

Given the rather rapid progression to pretty uniform pricing across the web...which, btw, should NEVER happen in a free market economy like the US...but given the lack of price variation or even advertised sale prices, I don't think it's much of a stretch the same sort of MAP policy has been applied to the Pentax brand camera gear as was done with the Hoya branded filters. And as we are seeing, consumer prices are off the charts for no apparent reason. I could see the 10-15% increases for other lens brands because of the increased energy costs associated with just making the lens elements...a lot of energy is used in that process. But the near 100% increased in some cases just cannot be justified.

Now for us in the US if you read the above article, at least the grey box at the top, posted on the 2filters.com site you can find links to US laws which pretty much prohibit this sort of policy as being anti-consumer and anti-competitive. Maryland has already passed a law in this regard which also covers the internet. I have a sense HoyaTax made a move to pretty much web only sales to try and avoid the existing Federal laws in the US...but the Maryland law will, in essence affect the way companies can price for all in-state companies but also for any company who's web site is accessible by the residents of the state of Maryland. Where it goes from there will depend, ultimately, on Federal Courts...technically the US Supreme court is only supposed to deal with Constitutional law but these days, it seems to have forgotten such things.

Anyway, to me, not only am I very disappointed in the current price increases, but also an attempt to undermine the very basis of our free market (no I am not naive enough to believe we have a real free market anymore...but still). To support that there is interest at a Federal level in such pricing issues, the FTC is currently looking into the strange fact that every cell carrier charges the same price for SMS messages...and their contracts all are pretty much the same when everything is considered.

Maybe it is a rant here but also maybe it is yet another company who feels they get to eliminate retailer control of pricing. Not many companies survive long with that model in the US. I am giving it two months more...if the K7 problems are not addressed and fixed completely and lens prices have not self corrected...I have no choice but to try something else no matter how much I like the Pentax gear and shots.

To add to this a bit...I just moved to Pentax from Canon because I was never really happy with something that I never put my finger on...but I did like the results I saw and get from my Pentax gear...still I am not one to sit back and get hosed simply because...I sense the issue is not Pentax, but a wholly different corporate philosophy at Hoya when they became what I call HoyaTax...see we get to now pay a Tax to Hoya in order to continue with the Pentax brand.

Those are my observations and I am not posted to debate them but simply to offer a POV of a new Pentax user...and I feel the new HoyaTax has no sense of fair play with the people who bought into the Pentax concept of good bodies, great lenses which were kept simple in order to reduce the cost. In-lens was supposed to be the reason for higher prices on VR & IS lenses as well as HSM to a degree...but now when the SDM lenses are priced at the same or higher level. Makes no sense to me...a 10-15% or even 20% if there were some new overhead to justify. But not the level of lens price increases.

BTW, I expect the next version of the K7 to begin NOT to support legacy glass...think about it, if Hoya wants to jack up the prices like this, they also want to force people to buy new lenses if those folks want the newer tech bodies. It will happen over the next 3-5 yrs, if Pentax lasts as a brand that long...I see Hoya actually spinning off the Pentax brand into another company much like the Minolta/Sony thing and slowly reducing backward lens compatibility...at least if they stay on the path I am seeing right now.

And if i had know about any of the lens price increases I would never have made the switch...I mean what would the point be? I had a nice set of lenses, wanted to add two more but instead read about the K7, looked at the lens prices and decided, sure why not...a bit over a year ago now, I almost picked the K20D over the 40D but for the crappy LiveView implementation compared to the 40D...yeah I use that function A LOT.

I have one hobby left to me now and if the prices stay where they are currently, I will have lost that last hobby which keeps me physically active. Given I cannot get ANY FORM of health insurance due to a lifelong pre-existing condition and changes in insurance laws/regulation I just cannot continue to afford the hobby when forced to decide between medical care and a hobby. I guess I am just disappointed is all...not in the gear or the results I am getting with the bit of gear I have now, but rather in the new direction the brand (and industry as a whole) seems to have taken. But, hey, it can only get better....or not...right? I am still enthusiastic and hopeful and only time will tell...to be honest I will probably wait longer than 2-months... It's just too much fun for me.

[falconeye]

Actually, in the US that is NOT LEGAL...
[...]
you can find links to US laws which pretty much prohibit this sort of policy as being anti-consumer and anti-competitive.
[...]
Given I cannot get ANY FORM of health insurance due to a lifelong pre-existing condition

brecklundin,

actually, it isn't legal in Japan neither -- IF they agree on pricing. On the other hand, it is OF COURSE legal for the leader of one company to meet with the leader of another. So actually, it isn't illegal in the US even... (point is nobody knows what was talken at these meetings)


As for anti-consumer and anti-competitive legislation: Same in the EU. It is against EU law (called directives ), to try to enforce dealer prices. I once was upset by a British high end audio manufacturer forcing all its dealers to sell at MSRP. As it turned out, the British high end audio manufacturer was already condemned by Brussels to pay a high fine and after I made dealers aware of the fact, I got a phone call from the president of that manufacturer in order to settle the issue

As for health insurance: It would be against law in Germany to refuse health insurance whatever be the pre-existing condition. Maybe, not all US laws are better ...

[nanok]

i was about to mention the thing about health insurance, that's insane . not sure about the law, but i can guarantee there will be at least a few states where you will easily get health insurance. maybe it's time to think about corssing the pond

you might have a point about those economic, pro-consumer laws, but it doesn't seem like that japan-co theory holds true (at least not so far), pentax seems alone on the front of price rises, leading the pack by a wide margin, and the gap is widening further every month (as you can see from my above, if somewhat anecdotic, survey)

[Nass]

Seems to me like Park cameras have priced themselves out the market - they probably get a dealer's discount, and with the recession people are buying less high-end photo gear, so they have to make more margin to cover themselves?

If you look in this google price comparison here they're kinda pricey

I'm a subscriber of a certain amateur astronomy magazine. Browsing through the newest issue I had a look at what some of the amateur telescopes cost. This puts things really into perspective IMO. I just picked one of the telescopes as an example. This particular telescope with its advanced goto-system and solid tripod costs today much less than a DA* 55mm (like two thirds). Am I the only one who smells something funny? This isn't just about Pentax but the whole camera and lens business.

Sky-Watcher Skymax-102 SynScan AZ GOTO

This compact telescope, with its high-resolution multi-coated optical system, excels at medium-to-high-powers for the examination of the surface detail on the Moon, planets and also for double-star
observations. Also useful for terrestrial use.

# Magnifications (with eyepieces supplied): x52 & 130x
# Highest Practical Power (Potential): x204
# Diameter of Primary Mirror: 102mm
# Telescope Focal Length: 1300mm (f/12.7)
# Eyepieces Supplied (1.25"): 10mm & 25mm
# 6x30 Finderscope
# 90° Star Diagonal (1.25)
# SynScan AZ GoTo Computerised Alt-Azimuth HD Go-To Mount
# Power Requirement: 12v DC 1Amp Power Supply (Tip Positive) or AA Batteries (not supplied)
# Stainless Steel Tripod with Accessory Tray


# SynScan Database: Total 42,900+ Objects, including Complete M, NGC, IC & SAO Catalogues
# Alignment Method: Two-star or Brightest star alignment
# Pointing Accuracy Enhancement (PAE) feature
# Unknown Object Indentification feature
# Pointing Accuracy up to 10 arc min
# Tracking Rates: Sidereal, Lunar, Solar
# Slewing Speeds: 1.0x, 2.0x, 16x, 32x, 64x, 128x, 400x, 500x, 600x, 800x
# Tracking Mode: Dual Axis Tracking
# Quiet Operation
# Motor Type & Resolution: DC Servo Motors.
# Resolution 0.8923 arc sec or 1,452,425 steps/rev
# PC Compatible: can be used with popular
# Planetarium Software.
# SynScan Handset Firmware upgradeable via the Internet
# Power Requirement: 12v DC Power Supply (Tip Positive) or AA Batteries (not supplied)

[GLXLR]

I'm a subscriber of a certain amateur astronomy magazine. Browsing through the newest issue I had a look at what some of the amateur telescopes cost. This puts things really into perspective IMO. I just picked one of the telescopes as an example. This particular telescope with its advanced goto-system and solid tripod costs today much less than a DA* 55mm (like two thirds). Am I the only one who smells something funny? This isn't just about Pentax but the whole camera and lens business.

That's cause most telescopes don't consist any glass, just a few mirrors.

That's cause most telescopes don't consist any glass, just a few mirrors.

Yeah, you probably have a point with regard to more expensive materials used. However, I have to say that while I consider photography to be more of a hobby to me than astronomy, personally I probably see much more perceived value in a telescope like that than in a single prime SLR lens.

[philbaum]

samsungian: my point is that there is no excuse, and such a price increase is not normal, and doesn't make sense (not even business sense). pentax has never been "in trouble" financially, as far as i recall, not the past few years or so anyway, so what they seem to be doing now with lens prices is a decision, not a forced occurence,

i agree that the k-7 might end up as "dead at birth" because of this, people buyingk-7 spec cameras do their homework before spending cash, and this is true not only for pentax shooters. a small fraction of current pentax customers, which have glass they like and are not planning to add more of it soon, might buy it, but anyone else will look at the big picture, and will quickly discard the option when they realize they can get the same from canikon at lower prices. i do hope this is just some terrible mistake/misunderstanding which will be fixed in a matter of months or weeks, it would be such a shame

I share the same concerns and would have thought that a slower price increase would result in less sticker shock on their loyal customers.

Pentax's water resistance and resulting better build and such is not something you would expect with a lower end camera. Perhaps Hoya has decided that the proper niche for Pentax camera in today's crowded marketplace, is more in line with a Leica model.

Somewhat higher prices than they are today, but a quality option with good glass to choose from, prime lenses aplenty and water resistance for the rugged outdoors types.

Certainly, the Pentax staff layoffs that they already have gone through has really sharpened their plans and perspective. I was in an organization that went through some major cutbacks and layoffs, and you had better believe that management does a ton of re-assessments when something like that happens. It sharpens your attention in a way thats hard to describe.

If one looks at the recent products, though, K10, K20, K7, 50-135, 35 macro, 60-250, 200, 300, these are seriously good items. They are expensive when compare to older products but one has to figure that they were engineered and designed with today's labor market and one couldn't hope to currently design a lens from the ground-up at yesterday's prices. The important thing is, that these new products keep alive Pentax's capability to design lenses. If you don't keep on doing a technology, you lose the personnel and skills that get the job done.

I really do believe that the prices will settle out in an area that is more reasonable than they are today. However, i'm not so sure of my opinion that i didn't hurredly buy a DA 50-135 a month back. (what a lens-wow)

[nanok]

update to my previous post, one month or so ago (#70 in this thread)
see inline

as there has been further discussion on this topic, let's see what happened meanwhile, for reference (again, inline, the previous update was 07/2009):

da* 16-50/2.8 20.695, #now somewhere at 24.000 #december, 23.790, so no change
da* 50-135/2.8 22.969, #now at 27.000 #december, 26.190, slight drop
da* 60-250/4 29.925 #now at 33.000 #december, 31.890, slight drop
dfa 100 macro 15.530 #from here bellow, about the same (no major change) #december, 14490, slight drop (but no stock, hmm)
50/1.4 12 790 #december, 12.190, same thing
12-24/4 28 690 #december, 27.290, slight drop (that is, near 100usd drop)

meanwhile, no major changes in the canon prices, except maybe for the 70-200/4 Is, now near 31000 (so still well bellow the 60-250/4, even more so, now)

canon:

100 macro 13.375 #december, 13.490, irrelevant increase
70-200/4 L 16.087 (almost half of 60-250, non-is) #december, 15.990, irrelevant drop
70-200/4 L(IS) 29.482 #december, 29.990, irrelevant increase
17-55//2.8 (IS) 23.504 #december, 24.990, slight increase
50/1.4 9.213 #december, 9.490, irrelevant increase
50/1.8 2.926 (note, this used to not matter, the pentax 50/1.4
was supposed to be almost as cheap, it never was here, but in
the us at least it was) #december, 2.990, same
10-22/some-crap 20.310 (people say it's not the greatest, don't know..) #december, 20.490, same

nikon:

50/1.4 7.990 (10 590 for the "G", which is in the class with our 55sdm, right?) #december, 10.590, over 100usd equiv up
105/2.8 micro vr 20.823 #december, 22.990, going up
17-55/2.8 dx blah 33.686 (ouch) #december, 37.990 uuuuh
70-200/2.8 VR (can't find a normal one) 52.523 #december, 46.990, 62.990 for the vrII, interesting (considerable drop to say the least)
12-24/4 25.531 (but i hear it's "class leading") #december, 30.990, consistent increase (over 200 bucks)

sony (hey, why the hell not?) #december: why do i bother? did somebody forget to update the prices?

50/1.4 11 790 #december, 11.790 (btw, 3.990 for the /1.8)
70-200/2.8 59 990 #december, 59.990
100/2.8 macro 23 690 #december, 23.690
16-80 3.5-4.5 23 190 #december, 23.190

sorry, i am lost, the most confusing lineup i have ever seen.

edit: updated with tamron prices, for completeness (following falk's theory)

tamron (kmount)

90 macro 12 190 #december, 11.190
10-24/some-crap 12 590 #december, 11.390
17-50/2.8 11 390 #december, 10.290
70-200/2.8 20 690 #december, 18.990

canon mount
12 190
12 590
11 390
20 690 #december, 15.990, only for canon (all others 18.990)
180/3.5 1:1 macro 17.990 #december, added now, because it reminds me of the legendary and ilussive pentax 200 macro, tamron makes something here and now, but NOT for pentax (?)


(identical)
#december (tamron), very consistent across the range 10% or so drop. hmm, does the yen trade different for tamron? ; opposite to nikon, very consisten about 10% increase, on already high prices overall

#december, adding tokina

11-16/2.8 15.990 #everybody praises it. not for pentax.
12-24/4 13.990 #less than half the pentax, same glass
16-50/2.8 14.290
50-135/2.8 16.390/18.690 nikon/canon
80-400/4.5-5.6 15.990 #no pentax
100/2.8 macro 10.890 #same lens as pentax? don't know
35/2.8 macro 11.990 #any relation to pentax? again don't know

so, pentax vs canon.. hmm, anybody selling a 40d? seriously, the only slight edge is on the 16-50/2.8, and i can "almost" buy it from tokina for cheaper (not sealed and so on, but neither is the 40d ), but other than that... ouch, what a beating.

pentax vs nikon: okay, now i know why most nikon shooters i see shoot third party or old glass, their premium glass is not cheap. otoh, the cheap crap (not shown here) is cheaper than most (is pentax dreaming the same?). however it's still better in some cases (considerably better), like the wide end, the fast 50's, and a few others.

i won't comment on sony, maybe i just didn't find a proper dealer or something. my head spins already. they seem well covered on the tele side, though (but not cheap)

i should look at oly too, but i've had enough (and i might be in danger to go oly if i do..)

so am i saying pentax shouldn't be twice as expensive as canon? hell yeah. i have in-body is? great, but i payed for it (in some form or another), and i made this choice knowing i will save money after, so i expect to be able to reasonably compare prices to the non-is versions of canikon (you can say it's not fair, it is: if you turn in-body stabilization into a "feature" that i have to pay on my body, after which i pay is-lens prices for each lens, instead of _choosing_ if i want to pay it for each lens, or want to pay _half_ the price and only get the excellent optics, i'll take the in-lens system 8 out of 10).