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

[biz-engineer]

The stock of amazon DE is 5 , then 6, then 7... increasing over time, humm, business wise, I think the price is too high for that lens, not because it's a bad lens, but because people know that the DFA70-210 is a native Tamron lens, and Tamron set the base price point of less than 450 Euros, so I think in people's mind 3 x the base price is too much. I think I'm about right to believe that Ricoh won't sell much of that lens unless they set the price within the 800 euros <-> 900 euros bracket. Ricoh are waiting for us to swallow the bill, and we are waiting for Ricoh to drop the price. So far as I'm concerned, I'm not in a hurry since I already have the DFA70-200 so I can wait one year, two years, three years, forever as long as the price is not right I won't buy that DFA70210.

[RobA_Oz]

The Tamron price in Europe at launch was €799 at launch, according to DPR’s article. If its base price now is under €450, that’s a hell of a discount to occur in two years, but maybe there’s an updated version in the wings.

In Australia, it’s currently available for $929AU, whereas the Pentax version is $1429AU. If there was a 3:1 price differential here, the Tamron would be going for $476AU. I can’t see that happening.

I’m still thinking about it, as a value proposition, so I’ll be interested to see Sandy’s comparison shots.

[Rondec]

I cannot conclusively prove my points nor can you prove yours.

The matter at hand is what does the evidence show as most probable.

If the lens has been significantly modified in design I would ask you how?

The number of elements is the same

The number of groups is the same

The number of ED elements is the same

The barrel length is the same

The barrel diameter is the same

The minimum focusing distance is the same

The maximum magnification is the same


If all these characteristics are the same what could they have changed that would be significant that would not affect all of the above attributes?

As for Pentax demanding higher tolerances, that is certainly a possibility. I have never said anything about that one way or another.

As for who makes the lens the previous two Tamron designed lenses are made in Japan by Tamron.

The 70-210 F4 Tamron version is made in Vietnam where Tamron has a factory. The Pentax lens version is made in Vietnam. While Pentax has a factory In Vietnam the prior relationship has been for Tamron to manufacture the lenses for Pentax. Given Pentax’s small size has a customer it would be unlikely for them to change the terms at this point. The evidence therefore points overwhelmingly to Tamron being the manufacturer.

Who makes the Tokina Opera 50mm? We know that it is based on the Pentax DFA 50mm f1.4, but does Pentax manufacture it for Tokina with a different skin or does Tokina assemble it themselves?

The reality with many of these things is that the name on the lens doesn't always tell you everything about it. Plenty of Sony lenses are made by third parties for them. The reality is that the biggest negative of many of Tamron's lenses has been their lens coatings (which are decent but not as good as Pentax's) and that is fixed on this lens.

[bdery]

So even if the Pentax 70-210 were 100% built and assembled by Tamron, I don't believe it will make it a worse lens in any way than if it was 100% Ricoh assembled.

True. I believe the point some people were trying to make is that there is a price premium for the Pentax name, if the lens is 100% Tamron.

the fact that none of the Tamron-based lenses have been issued with a * or Limited designation by Pentax, under Ricoh or Hoya ownership (or under its brief period of independence). That, of course, could simply be the result of a policy designed to elevate the Pentax name above one of its partners

That would/could make sense.

Pentax seems awfully conservative with their brand. For instance, the 24-70 and 15-30 are extremely good lenses, certainly as good optically as the 16-50, but did not get the * label. And as another example, I discussed with a regional director last Fall and he told me Pentax did consider releasing a Ff version of the 60-250 (which many users, me among them, have happily modified for FFF). However, since they realized that the corners on FF were not exactly as sharp as on APS-C (something obvious, and to be expected, even without testing) they decided not to, because the lens "wasn't as good as it was supposed to be".

the current situation with Pentax using Tamron designs and making the available under the Pentax brand is a fine solution, with minimum risk to Tamron.

I believe that's the way going forward, for the short term at least.

But with Pentax licensing the DFA 50 1.4 to Tokina, the suggestion is, Pentax can't design lenses just for Pentax anymore than Tamron and Sigma could.

Tokina has reportedly been using Pentax designs under license for many years, so I don't think it's anything new.

[normhead]

Tokina has reportedly been using Pentax designs under license for many years, so I don't think it's anything new.

The DA*60-250 wasn't licensed and it became kind of "why buy Pentax" poster boy for a few years. If memory serves me well, falconeye pretty much bought into Pentax because he liked that lens. Making the lens available through other mounts takes away that advantage. I still think when they license, it's part of a larger plan. There is a downside. My interest in Canon would end the second their 24mm came out in Pentax mount.

[RobA_Oz]

The D FA70-210/4 is now listed in Australia as being due on 28 February, which is a week earlier than before. The price hasn't moved, though. An introductory offer for existing customers would be nice, if unexpected.

[RobA_Oz]

...and now it's marked as "Backorder", "Out of stock". That was quick! Out of stock before they've arrived. Clearly, a popular choice.

[Sandy Hancock]

An introductory offer for existing customers would be nice, if unexpected.

The introductory price is already one of the best in the world, relatively speaking....

[biz-engineer]

The Pentax DFA24-70 is currently at about the same price as the Tamron 24-70 G2.
The Pentax DFA15-30 is currently at about 1.4x the price of the Tamron 15-30 G2.
Relatively speaking the DFA 70-210 is 2.66 times more expensive than the Tamron 70-210.
I wished that Ricoh set price of the 70-210 it to an level acceptable for both Ricoh and customers.

[Rondec]

The Pentax DFA24-70 is currently at about the same price as the Tamron 24-70 G2.
The Pentax DFA15-30 is currently at about 1.4x the price of the Tamron 15-30 G2.
Relatively speaking the DFA 70-210 is 2.66 times more expensive than the Tamron 70-210.
I wished that Ricoh set price of the 70-210 it to an level acceptable for both Ricoh and customers.

Give it some time. We are several years out from the release of the DFA 24-70 and 15-30 and they were a lot higher at their release -- I know because I bought them both pretty soon after release and the price began to drop only a few months later.

I don't regret spending a bit more on them, though, and years later they are still working to take nice photos.

[LennyBloke]

We are Pentax users - we are used to paying high prices for second hand and new lenses! I've paid the full price over in the UK for my DFA 70-210 and i'm fully aware that it's over-priced and will drop by several hundred pounds over the next few months/years - but I'm also aware that it fills a much needed gap for me. I'm 100% happy, with no regrets - my review in the forums doesn't give it 10's across the board (the closest to that is the DFA*50/1.4 IMO) but it's replaced my DA*60-250 and DA*200 and that's no mean feat!

[normhead]

My F 70-210 was listed at $60, but Tess chatted the guy up and got it for $35. MY 35-80 cost me $80. My FAJ 18-35 cost $100. A full working 18-210 kit for $215. With Pentax, you don't necessarily have to pay to get in the game. Those were the lenses I initially used with my K-1 until I scratched together enough for a DFA 28-105. So you can pay a lot for lenses, but you don't really have to. Especially if you have a Tess.

I know you're thinking those aren't the best lenses, but almost all my images are displayed reduced in size. So even the worst of them, the FAJ 18-35 produces great images at 3840x2160. You can't pixel peep an image once it's reduced in size and it will look sharp if you do.

And you still get the K-1 dynamic range which is what I bought the camera for.
Know a lot of people say DR is overrated... and like everything else it is, until it isn't.

I'm quite happy the DFA 70-210 ƒ4 is there, just because everyone else has one, it takes away one more reason not to buy Pentax.

[biz-engineer]

My F 70-210 was listed at $60, but Tess chatted the guy up and got it for $35. MY 35-80 cost me $80. My FAJ 18-35 cost $100. A full working 18-210 kit for $215.

Prices of electronic goods go down faster than performance goes up, cameras and lenses tend to follow that trend. In other words, if you don't might having the best camera gear, photography can be a lot cheaper.

---------- Post added 24-02-20 at 18:13 ----------

I'm quite happy the DFA 70-210 ƒ4 is there, just because everyone else has one, it takes away one more reason not to buy Pentax.

Not all systems have a 70-200ish f4 available. Currently the RF and Z mounts don't have one.

[normhead]

Prices of electronic goods go down faster than performance goes up, cameras and lenses tend to follow that trend. In other words, if you don't might having the best camera gear, photography can be a lot cheaper.

---------- Post added 24-02-20 at 18:13 ----------


Not all systems have a 70-200ish f4 available. Currently the RF and Z mounts don't have one.

I'm not sure people interested in those systems are people who might look at Pentax.

[biz-engineer]

I'm not sure people interested in those systems are people who might look at Pentax.

Yes, but I'm not sure people interested in Pentax system might look at switching to a Z or RF system if they want a 70-200 f4 zoom.