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

[normhead]

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.

Ya, well, a guy like you would wouldn't you?
You can't see what others see, you can't understand competing arguments, why would you think you were anything but right?

The way to counter an argument is not to suggest the evidence doesn't exist.

[blackcloudbrew]

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

Well darn, right you are! Found it very faintly etched on the body, no color, nothing. Thanks for making me try one more time on that. For the record, the serial number - on mine - is etched on the same body ring as Pentax name and AF and Limiter switches, almost 180 degrees around from the Pentax marking.

Oh, another item for consideration. On a whim based on this whole who made the darned thing, I ordered (from B&H), the Tamron Tripod Mount M for their 70-210 F/4 Di VC USD lens. Just arrived today and...it fits the Pentax lens like a glove (albeit a tight one). Somehow when ordering it, I neglected to notice the price for it. - $117USD! Yikes, some how I thought it was less. [sigh] I'm going to keep it, as it's a nice option, on this lens but really the mount is about 10% of the lens price? Sheech... I will say that the tripod mount's foot while having the usual screw in connection for a mounting plate, is configured already as an Arca-swiss plate. That's actually nice and the lens with foot sans camera, balances nicely on the foot.

Bottom line here is that while I'll keep the foot for this lens, at the price I paid for it, you gotta really want it. YMMV.

Edit: The fact that a Tamron tripod mount fits this lens like a glove, might just mean something about who might have manufactured it, but again, who knows?

Edit #2: So...after ordering the Tamron Tripod mount and paying, well too much for it. Randomly messing around in Amazon has revealed a 3rd party version of this Tripod mount for $49 USD. Does it fit the Pentax? Don't know, most likely it does. [sigh] :-( https://www.amazon.com/Haoge-LMR-TL721-Replacement-70-210mm-Release/dp/B07MB...M6JCENBRP8SAZC

[bladerunner6]

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

Are you saying there is no evidence that this is a rebadge of the Tamron?

[bladerunner6]

Ya, well, a guy like you would wouldn't you?
You can't see what others see, you can't understand competing arguments, why would you think you were anything but right?

The way to counter an argument is not to suggest the evidence doesn't exist.

Again, my question is are you saying there is no evidence this is a rebadged lens?

[Rondec]

Again, my question is are you saying there is no evidence this is a rebadged lens?

I think bdery's point, which I think is a good one, is that regardless of if Pentax is assembling the lens, or if Tamron is building the lens to Pentax's specifications and using Pentax's proprietary lens coatings, the end result is likely that the Pentax versions of this lens test better than Tamron's.

It is going to be pretty hard to tell since Tamron and Pentax both have factories in Vietnam. The DFA 24-70 and 15-30 both say "Made in Japan" on them, but this lens is assembled in Vietnam, which could mean it is assembled in the Pentax or the Tamron plant.

I'm still going to go out on a limb and predict that this lens tests better than the already good Tamron versions of it.

[y0chang]

I rather have a Tamron rebadge than no lens at all. If we get the things Pentax needs in its lens ecosystem like the cheap FF 20mm, 35mm and a 24mm that Tamron just released, even with a Pentax Price Premium, I am all for it.

[normhead]

Again, my question is are you saying there is no evidence this is a rebadged lens?

Are you saying there's any kind of definitive proof that it is?

Even the fact that the lens element diagrams are virtually the same doesn't mean a whole lot. You'd have to confirm the duplication of every element of lens design in each element. Same refractive index in each piece of glass, ground to the same tolerance etc.

Give it up, this isn't civli suit, there are no partial judgements based on probability.

What we suspect is it's a Tamron design based on the diagrams, but even that isn't proof, because we don't know if the refractive indexes, specs and tolerances are the same on every piece of glass. Bring those two diagrams to court and you'll get laughed out of court.As pointed out, we don't even know how much work Tamron does on it's own designs. It's possible they export the manufacture of many components to other companies, which makes the argument even more ridiculous. Even a Tamron in all probability isn't all Tamron.

And for many of us, we just don't even care.

We have a lens to buy, the rest is not important. I don't have to make a decision on it being an off the shelf Tamron or a Pentax manufactured lens. Your need to clarify an issue with speculation and declare the issue settled in your mind shows a certain lack of ability to live with uncertainty.

But I guess you could start a religion where your members have to repeat "The DFA 70-210 is made by Tamron" or get excommunicated. But I'm not joining. It's not an article of faith for me.

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-18-2020 at 08:44 AM.

[bladerunner6]

Are you saying there's any kind of definitive proof that it is?

Even the fact that the lens element diagrams are virtually the same doesn't mean a whole lot. You'd have to confirm the duplication of every element of lens design in each element. Same refractive index in each piece of glass, ground to the same tolerance etc.

Give it up, this isn't civli suit, there are no partial judgements based on probability.

What we suspect is it's a Tamron design based on the diagrams, but even that isn't proof, because we don't know if the refractive indexes, specs and tolerances are the same on every piece of glass. Bring those two diagrams to court and you'll get laughed out of court.As pointed out, we don't even know how much work Tamron does on it's own designs. It's possible they export the manufacture of many components to other companies, which makes the argument even more ridiculous. Even a Tamron in all probability isn't all Tamron.

And for many of us, we just don't even care.

We have a lens to buy, the rest is not important. I don't have to make a decision on it being an off the shelf Tamron or a Pentax manufactured lens. Your need to clarify an issue with speculation and declare the issue settled in your mind shows a certain lack of ability to live with uncertainty.

But I guess you could start a religion where your members have to repeat "The DFA 70-210 is made by Tamron" or get excommunicated. But I'm not joining. It's not an article of faith for me.

It looks the same.

Has the same focal length

The length of the lens is the same

The optical formula is the same

The minimum focusing distance is the same

The maximum magnification is the same and other similarities

Plus as I said, we have two previous data points that say when all the above are true, the lens is made by Tamron on in their factory. That is incredibly relevant, it shows how their business relationships work.

And your facts do you have that says it was made by Pentax? Tamron makes their version in Vietnam so the country of origin is not a point in your favor.

I absolutely have the ability with live with uncertainty. I wrote the following several days ago about Pentax rebadging the lens:

“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.”

I just saying you seem be living in denial that the evidence overwhelmingly points in one direction only.

Saying I should believe in something that has no evidence just because something else is not conclusively proven really is logically flawed.

I am done with this conversation, you are free to continue. Normally I live by qui tacet consentire videtur but in this case I am just ceasing because this is tedious and I have better things to do in life.

And this is a friendly forum and your language is getting a bit hostile.

[normhead]

And this is a friendly forum and your language is getting a bit hostile.

You don't respect any opinion other than your own, and you call me hostile? Please, if you want to know what i'm talking about, read your post over, go back through the thread, see how many points against your position have been posted, so you understand how biased you are here. You've ignored almost all of them.

I have no time for those who can't even acknowledge the points made by others.

In any case, I'm done, you're Boriscletoed.

[bdery]

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

Respectfully, apart from the matching focal range and aperture, everything else is only people in forums repeating the hypothesis. That does not make it true, even if the crowd is loud.

[bdery]

Saying I should believe in something that has no evidence just because something else is not conclusively proven really is logically flawed.

Addendum : the null hypothesis in this case is that Pentax lenses are made by Pentax.

The hypothesis that the Pentax lens under scrutiny is made by Tamron needs to be proven, as it isn't the null hypothesis.

Circumstantial evidence is interesting, and there IS such evidence, but it's only that, circumstantial. It's not proof. Cannot be. Does not support, in any way, the refutation of the null hypothesis.

So even though it's POSSIBLE that Tamron makes the lens, it's absolutely not CERTAIN. There are many (an infinite number?) of other hypotheses available (made by Sigma, made by Tokina, made by Irix, made by a manufacturer we know nothing about, optical lelements ground by manufacturer X, coated by manufacturer Y, assembled by manufacturer Z, the list goes on). Even if some hypotheses are more LIKELY does make them true. Until proven otherwise, only the null hypothesis is a useful ground for discussion.

In the end, it does not matter who makes the lens. We can like its optical output or not. We can approve its pricing or now. We can like its features or not. The rest doesn't matter.

Cheers !

[biz-engineer]

Respectfully, apart from the matching focal range and aperture, everything else is only people in forums repeating the hypothesis.

Nothing prevents Ricoh to design the DFA70-210 lens so that it looks as close as possible to the Tamron, even if everything inside the Pentax lens is completely different.
That lens looks like a tube with glass elements inside, lile many cameras lenses, some even look like a pancake doesn't mean they are edible with blueberries on top.

[bladerunner6]

Addendum : the null hypothesis in this case is that Pentax lenses are made by Pentax.

The hypothesis that the Pentax lens under scrutiny is made by Tamron needs to be proven, as it isn't the null hypothesis.

Circumstantial evidence is interesting, and there IS such evidence, but it's only that, circumstantial. It's not proof. Cannot be. Does not support, in any way, the refutation of the null hypothesis.

So even though it's POSSIBLE that Tamron makes the lens, it's absolutely not CERTAIN. There are many (an infinite number?) of other hypotheses available (made by Sigma, made by Tokina, made by Irix, made by a manufacturer we know nothing about, optical lelements ground by manufacturer X, coated by manufacturer Y, assembled by manufacturer Z, the list goes on). Even if some hypotheses are more LIKELY does make them true. Until proven otherwise, only the null hypothesis is a useful ground for discussion.

In the end, it does not matter who makes the lens. We can like its optical output or not. We can approve its pricing or now. We can like its features or not. The rest doesn't matter.

Cheers !

OMG:

The Tamron has 20 elements, the Pentax has 20 elements.

The Tamron has 14 groups, the Pentax has 14 groups.

The Tamron has three ED elements, the Pentax has three ED elements.

Tamron lens has a length of 6.9 inches, the Pentax has a length of 6.9 inches.

The Tamron has a minimal focal distance 0.95 meters, the Pentax has a minimal focal distance of 0.95 meters.

The Tamron has filter diameter of 67 mm, the Pentax has a filter diameter of 67 mm.

The Tamron has a maximum magnification of 0.32, the Pentax has a maximum magnification of 0.32.

The Tamron has nine blades, the Pentax has nine blades.

The collar for the Tamron fits the Pentax.

The lenses have a remarkably similar appearance.

The Tamron lens appeared first. In all my decades of working in manufacturing I have never heard of a third party introducing a product before the OEM.

Pentax unquestionably has sourced two lenses from Tamron in the last few years.

All this and you expect me to say the lens is more likely made by Pentax than a Tamron?

Sorry, your logic is faulty.

[normhead]

Nothing prevents Ricoh to design the DFA70-210 lens so that it looks as close as possible to the Tamron, even if everything inside the Pentax lens is completely different.
That lens looks like a tube with glass elements inside, lile many cameras lenses, some even look like a pancake doesn't mean they are edible with blueberries on top.

Or from licensing the design then tweaking it to meet their own spec. requirements. Given the certainty that Pentax upped their technical requirements when they went to "modern lenses for moderns sensors" design philosophy, we don't even know if the original Tamron even met that spec. especially since the DFA 15-30 is better than the lens design as implemented by Tamron.

NO one even knows if the Tamron met the Pentax minimum technical spec. It's quite possible the Pentax is a licensed design tweaked to meet the current Pentax standard, or it's actually different enough to qualify as a new lens. Neither does anyone know whether Pentax swapped out parts to add AF speed or reliability even if the lens is manufactured in a Tamron facility. There's nothing as scary as someone who thinks they know things they clearly don't.

I know for sure chain saw companies when they approach large scale retailers will often alter their gear to meet the price point the chain stores marketing department thinks will help sales. My Husquarva 16 inc electric has different components than the one that looks the same but is $70 cheaper at Canadian Tire. From the outside the only difference is something as seemingly insignificant as the AF limiter. And some of the major comments are the same. But the Canadian Tire model doesn't have a Husquarva model number on it, and isn't built to the same standard. Personally, I went for the OEM model. But someone who uses their chain saw a lot less than I do might be happy with the Canadian tire model. It's not right or wrong, it's what's right for you.

If you think the Tamron is right for you buy a cheap Canon or Nikon body and go for it. Right now you can get both body and lens for less than the Pentax. It's your money we don't care. However if you're going to imply you're getting the same or more than what Pentax owners get, you're going to have to know a lot more than we know now to prove that point.

OEM and after market are different. Aftermarket have to have a good enough price people will buy their stuff even though similar OEM equipment is available. OEM have to produce the quality to keep their pickiest customers happy. The two lenses are being produced for different markets.

[rawr]

All this and you expect me to say the lens is more likely made by Pentax than a Tamron?

Indeed.

IMHO somewhere in the Tamron lens assembly plant is a section of the factory where their tweaked 70-210 goes into a Ricoh box.

Probably sometime soon, by accident a Nikon or Canon user somewhere will open their Tamron 70-210 box and discover a Pentax 70-210 in it.