It looks like the new 70-210mm has just hit the shelves at Adorama! Can't complain about the turnaround time for this lens

Pentax HD PENTAX-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR Lens

[SSGGeezer]

he blanks are almost certainly not done by Tamron, but rather by Hoya, Schott, Corning and a few others.The polishing to make actual curved surfaces might or might not be done by Tamron or Pentax or another third-party sub-contractor. Whoever has the tooling and the production bandwidth.The coatings are absolutely proprietary, so done by Pentax.The assembly is almost certainly done by Pentax, since they are responsible for QC, but might be done elsewhere if they had full confidence in their manufacturer.In this discussion, we aree forgetting the time spent by R&D to adapt the optical design to the Pentax specifications, coatings, etc. As well as the time spent to design the body, interface the lens with the camera, build its firmware, define the production tolerances, controls and tests, certify it, the list goes on.

Thanks for the injection of logic Bernard!
Occam's razor and logic make your post as close to authoritative until someone decides to open up the lenses in question, either intentionally or not, and compares the workings of each. Maybe ask a tech from Precision after they see a copy or two?

[RobA_Oz]

I think most, if not all of us here realise there’s more to any of the Tamron-based Pentax lenses than simply changing the name on the lens barrel. We do, though, me included, tend to use the word “rebranded” as a form of shorthand that glosses over the changes needed to adapt to the K-mount, but emphasises the basic fact of origins outside the Ricoh/Pentax design office.

I don’t much care about the origin of any single lens. What I do care about is the proportion of the lens offering that is non-OEM, partly because it devalues the brand to some extent if it gets too large, but mainly because original design is important to push the technology forward.

I do understand why makers of anything outsource some of their product design and manufacture, especially small brands, but the reason for their continued existence in the face of larger opponents is their uniqueness, and you don’t enhance that by shopping out too much of your product line to others.

Not that I’m saying this is the case to date, for Pentax.

[Rondec]

That is supported by a conversation I had with a Pentax rep who said they didn't make the 60-250 FF because it was ever so slightly worse than on APS-C.

I personally believe it doesn't matter, but that's my own humble opinion.



The point @normhead has been making in this whole thread is that, precisely, it is not clear at all.

The blanks are almost certainly not done by Tamron, but rather by Hoya, Schott, Corning and a few others.

The polishing to make actual curved surfaces might or might not be done by Tamron or Pentax or another third-party sub-contractor. Whoever has the tooling and the production bandwidth.

The coatings are absolutely proprietary, so done by Pentax.

The assembly is almost certainly done by Pentax, since they are responsible for QC, but might be done elsewhere if they had full confidence in their manufacturer.

In this discussion, we aree forgetting the time spent by R&D to adapt the optical design to the Pentax specifications, coatings, etc. As well as the time spent to design the body, interface the lens with the camera, build its firmware, define the production tolerances, controls and tests, certify it, the list goes on.

Who knows? The Tamron 15-30 and Pentax 15-30 tested quite differently on ephotozine, but that doesn't say where each is made (Pentax tested better). The same with the 24-70 f2.8 lenses. Does that mean that Tamron is manufacturing them with Pentax select elements? Does it mean that Pentax is only using Tamron's optical formula? I just don't think we know, except to say that in general the Pentax versions of these lenses do test better.

HD PENTAX-D FA 15-30mm F2.8 ED SDM WR Review | ePHOTOzine

Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Review | ePHOTOzine

[RobA_Oz]

Who knows? The Tamron 15-30 and Pentax 15-30 tested quite differently on ephotozine, but that doesn't say where each is made (Pentax tested better). The same with the 24-70 f2.8 lenses. Does that mean that Tamron is manufacturing them with Pentax select elements? Does it mean that Pentax is only using Tamron's optical formula? I just don't think we know, except to say that in general the Pentax versions of these lenses do test better.

HD PENTAX-D FA 15-30mm F2.8 ED SDM WR Review | ePHOTOzine

Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Review | ePHOTOzine

Interesting comparison. The Pentax version tested better for sharpness across the frame, but much worse in CA at the edges, more than I’d have thought was a result of mere sample variation. It’ll be even more interesting to compare the 70-210 versions.

[bladerunner6]

The Pentax is made in Vietnam, it's in the thread, not too far back.
It would be nice to have the "if's" cleared up before the assumption is made.
Even then, country of origin tends to be the country where the final assembly was done. Parts for the Cambridge Ontario Toyota plant come from Canada, the U.S and Japan,yet the car is listed as made in Canada.

There are just too many unknowns to justify speculation.

If anyone knows more than Pentax licensed the design, let us know. "Knows" as in actual knowledge of the parts manufacture and assembly process. Not what you think might be true. Most of us choose not to fill our memories up with other's idle speculations.

Especially when the only purpose of that speculation is to insinuate the Pentax version is over priced.
I like my Tamron lenses, but I like them to fill in focal lengths Pentax doesn't make.

I do realize the Tamron is made In Vietnam.

This is my logic- both of the previous rebrands or whatever you want to call them are made in Japan as are the Tamron versions of the lenses.

As Pentax has no lens manufacturing facilities in Japan this means the lenses are made by Tamron.

Giving that two rebadged lenses so far are made by Tamron it makes sense other lenses would be.

Do I have conclusive proof-no.

But is the evidence overwhelmingly in that direction-yes.

Does this bother me-no.

In a declining market partnerships are going to be more and more important. Pentax licensing lenses to Tokina, Pentax licensing lenses from Tamron, Tokina licensing from Viltrox, the L mount alliance, etc.

There is no shame in it, it is just the way the world works.

[bladerunner6]

Who knows? The Tamron 15-30 and Pentax 15-30 tested quite differently on ephotozine, but that doesn't say where each is made (Pentax tested better). The same with the 24-70 f2.8 lenses. Does that mean that Tamron is manufacturing them with Pentax select elements? Does it mean that Pentax is only using Tamron's optical formula? I just don't think we know, except to say that in general the Pentax versions of these lenses do testing better.

HD PENTAX-D FA 15-30mm F2.8 ED SDM WR Review | ePHOTOzine

Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Review | ePHOTOzine

Some of the differences in the test results could be sample to sample variations.

[RobA_Oz]

Some of the differences in the test results could be sample to sample variations.

Either their tolerances for the final QC check must be pretty wide for that much variation to occur (particularly the CA difference), or their sampling rate is too low to detect it. Unless one or both of them had a rough time on the way to the test bench, it’s not a great advertisement for a country that first took Deming’s work to heart in a big way.

[blackcloudbrew]

Random fact here: I just noticed on my 70-210 lens that there is no serial number on the lens body (that I can find anyway). Apparently, the serial number is on the registration card in the box. Odd, I don't think I've seen any new Pentax lens with the serial numbering like this. Does that mean anything? Who knows?

[Mikesul]

Look closely for very small numbers. The 15-30 has an almost invisible serial number which is the same color as the body.

[bdery]

Thanks for the injection of logic Bernard!
Occam's razor and logic make your post as close to authoritative until someone decides to open up the lenses in question, either intentionally or not, and compares the workings of each. Maybe ask a tech from Precision after they see a copy or two?

A pleasure.

I've been working in R&D for optics companies for about 12 years now, so I do know a thing or two...

Precision won't be able to assess the R&D involved in providing the Pentax version. They might be able to determine how much Tamron DNA (if any) is to be found in the Pentax lens.

Does that mean that Tamron is manufacturing them with Pentax select elements?

If Tamron does manufacture that lens, it will be with Pentax QC requirements (apart from the rest I listed above), so it could still turn out a vastly different lens.

[normhead]

But is the evidence overwhelmingly in that direction-yes.

I think your baseline for what qualifies as evidence evidence might be a little lower than mine.

[bladerunner6]

I think your baseline for what qualifies as evidence evidence might be a little lower than mine.

I would say it is higher than yours.

When there is only evidence in one direction and multiple things in that direction that is overwhelming.

[monochrome]

I would say it is higher than yours.

When there is only evidence in one direction and multiple things in that direction that is overwhelming.

Evidence that the prior rebadged lenses were Made in Japan and thus likely assembled by Tamron does not extend to this lens. Each case is unique. Projecting by association is not provable.. I want to see the printing on the box or engraving on the lens.

[bladerunner6]

Evidence that the prior rebadged lenses were Made in Japan and thus likely assembled by Tamron does not extend to this lens. Each case is unique. Projecting by association is not provable.. I want to see the printing on the box or engraving on the lens.

Why does it not apply to this lens?

Whether or not it is provable is really a moot point. There is evidence in one direction only.

And as I pointed out- what does it matter? The lens exists because of the rebadging/licensing/whatever you want to call it.

Partnerships as the new normal for smaller manufacturers.

[monochrome]

Why does it not apply to this lens?

Whether or not it is provable is really a moot point. There is evidence in one direction only.

And as I pointed out- what does it matter? The lens exists because of the rebadging/licensing/whatever you want to call it.

Partnerships as the new normal for smaller manufacturers.

Actually, there is no evidence whatsoever pertaining to this lens, only to prior lenses. You are falsely projecting.