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]

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.

Now that might be bit of a stretch. The Pentax clearly must be finished unit's own line with the insertion of the limiter.

You guys are hilarious.

[monochrome]

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.

None of which has anything to do with whether the Pentax lens is a straight rebadge, or was manufactured by Tamron to Pentax’s higher specifications or modified design (or not manufactured by Tamron at all).

[biz-engineer]

Or from licensing the design then tweaking it to meet their own spec. requirements.

Of course. I don't understand these concerns. As a photographer, either you need that kind of lens with its imaging capability, or you don't, why should it be a problem who made it. Anyway, Hoya owns much of the optical glass market (something like 90% or more), so most likely all sheets of glass used by lens makers come from Hoya.

---------- Post added 19-02-20 at 04:14 ----------

Now that might be bit of a stretch. The Pentax clearly must be finished unit's own line with the insertion of the limiter.

It's not uncommon to test parts at end of line before marking, best parts A, medium parts B, and rejects. I used to work for a company where we knew statistically the top 20% of parts had superior performance, so we marked the parts after testing, so that the best parts are marked differently and sold under different name and at a higer price. Doing so made more money than simply having a single product sold at a single price with more performance spread inside production batches. So my guess is that when Tamron produce a batch of 70-210 lenses, they test them and split the best lenses for the Pentax D-FA70-210 because doing so they can sell to Ricoh at a higher price. Canon and Nikon users get the Tamy 70-210 lens for $400 because Ricoh picks the top best ones for themselves.

[Sandy Hancock]

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Can we move on people....

[Rondec]

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.

We know they have the same optical formula. The question is is this a situation like Tokina/Pentax where they license the lens for their own use, but build it in their own factory or does Tamron build it for them to their specifications? Regardless, the lens was designed by Tamron.

At the same time, the Pentax versions of these lenses seem to test better to me.

Pentax DFA 15-30 ephotozine review: HD PENTAX-D FA 15-30mm F2.8 ED SDM WR Review | ePHOTOzine

Tamron 15-30 f2.8 ephotozine review: Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Review | ePHOTOzine

Pentax DFA 24-70 ephotozine review: Pentax HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 ED SDM WR Review | ePHOTOzine

Tamron 24-70 f2.8 (G2 version) ephotozine review: Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Review | ePHOTOzine

The biggest thing that I see in these reviews is that the Pentax versions of these lenses have much better edge performance than the Tamron versions of these lenses and the Pentax versions have more CAs. Of course, this could be copy variation, but it feels like there is something more here -- and more than simply the Pentax coatings being amazing, because those should not change Imatest chart performance.

[bladerunner6]

None of which has anything to do with whether the Pentax lens is a straight rebadge, or was manufactured by Tamron to Pentax’s higher specifications or modified design (or not manufactured by Tamron at all).

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.

[bdery]

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

The Vivitar Series 1 70-210 F3.5 begs to differ...

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

I never said "more likely". I wrote, both in this thread and to the private message you sent me, that all these observations increase the likelihood of Tamron making the lens for Pentax, to a degree or other.

What I am saying, but cannot manage to get through, is that there is a difference between something being possible, something being probable, and something being proven.

Whatever the degree of likelihood that Tamron has something to do with the Pentax design, there is no proof. That's a huge difference.

Also, you seem to base your reasoning on the ground that there are only two hypothesis : Tamron makes the lens or Pentax makes the lens. The truth, even if Tamron DOEs have something to do with the lens, is not as clear-cut probably. Tamron could license their lens design. They could limit themselves to providing refractive indexes for the various glass elements. They could say exactly which glass type and supplier they used. They could also provide the engineering service to modify their design to include Pentax coatings. They could provide the AF engine. They could provide the glass blanks, already polished to specs. They could provide partially assembled lenses. They could provide software support for the firmware coding. They could provide jigs for Pentax to build their own production line. I can go on for a day.

So even IF Tamron has something to do with this lens (which, again, is not proven), then it's not black or white. The level of involvement by Tamron is somewhere between "nothing" and "everything".

[rawr]

So even IF Tamron has something to do with this lens (which, again, is not proven), then it's not black or white.

Lurking behind this whole discussion is the prejudice that somehow Tamron's lens making capabilities, in terms of technology, design, quality etc, are inferior to those of Pentax.

That may indeed have been the case in about 1975, but those days are long gone. Today Pentax is the junior partner in terms of lens making capabilties, and Ricoh is lucky that Tamron chooses to work with them at all. 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.

[normhead]

Lurking behind this whole discussion is the prejudice that somehow Tamron's lens making capabilities, in terms of technology, design, quality etc, are inferior to those of Pentax.

That may indeed have been the case in about 1975, but those days are long gone. Today Pentax is the junior partner in terms of lens making capabilties, and Ricoh is lucky that Tamron chooses to work with them at all. 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.

Optically the Tamron 70-200 was just as good optically as Nikon and Canon 70-200s. (Sigma and Sony refused to submit lenses to the testers.) The anticipated problem with the Tamron was the build quality, and Tamron has made a concerted effort to address that. I would have absolutely no problem if Tamron did all the work and Pentax just supplied Pentax electronics where necessary. I'd be fine with that, but, Still am not going to say it's true, until I have something to go on.

What I do have a problem with is people who think it's the same lens and they are being ripped off having to buy the Pentax version. That hasn't been established.

[rawr]

The anticipated problem with the Tamron was the build quality, and Tamron has made a concerted effort to address that.

Indeed. In the US Tamron offer a 6 year warranty on this lens, as opposed to Pentax offering just one year for the 70-210. Even in my part of the world Tamron offers a two year lens warranty, vs Pentax's one.

[lesmore49]

None of which has anything to do with whether the Pentax lens is a straight rebadge, or was manufactured by Tamron to Pentax’s higher specifications or modified design (or not manufactured by Tamron at all).

I agree on all points with your description of possible options.

Over the years, through experience, I've been cognizant that a not uncommon practice has been, that companies who manufacture items for other companies... can manufacture the particular item for the other company brand, according to the specification outlined in the contract, between the two companies. Some products that I've had some experience with, other than camera equipment have included bicycle and automotive tire manufacture...along with camera equipment.

Case in point, I know in the 24-70 F 2.8 case, the Pentax brand has some features (specs) that the Tamron version does not have.

[RobA_Oz]

Lurking behind this whole discussion is the prejudice that somehow Tamron's lens making capabilities, in terms of technology, design, quality etc, are inferior to those of Pentax.

That may indeed have been the case in about 1975, but those days are long gone. Today Pentax is the junior partner in terms of lens making capabilties, and Ricoh is lucky that Tamron chooses to work with them at all. 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.

I doubt that luck has much, if anything to do with Tamron and Pentax working together. The price differential undoubtedly contains a component that is the key to that.

While there has been some overt expression of (to my eye, unjustified) prejudice against Tamron in the discussions here, I haven’t read much that indicates it’s wide-spread. We could examine the things that might lead people to that position, including 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, but we don’t know, and in any case if the design is good enough to put the Pentax name on a non-Limited or * lens, then there’s an implication that it’s as good as any of the comparable in-house designs.

The bigger issue lurking behind the discussion, to my mind, is the fear that Ricoh might eventually lose its in-house capacity to design and manufacture lenses. As I’ve said before, that would almost certainly lead to the destruction of the brand, as it would lose a significant portion of its appeal as a niche product line. Non-OEM lenses in its total lineup are currently in the minority, by a long margin, so it’s not a likely scenario now, but it’s something that’s worth keeping an eye on.

[normhead]

I doubt that luck has much, if anything to do with Tamron and Pentax working together. The price differential undoubtedly contains a component that is the key to that.

While there has been some overt expression of (to my eye, unjustified) prejudice against Tamron in the discussions here, I haven’t read much that indicates it’s wide-spread. We could examine the things that might lead people to that position, including 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, but we don’t know, and in any case if the design is good enough to put the Pentax name on a non-Limited or * lens, then there’s an implication that it’s as good as any of the comparable in-house designs.

The bigger issue lurking behind the discussion, to my mind, is the fear that Ricoh might eventually lose its in-house capacity to design and manufacture lenses. As I’ve said before, that would almost certainly lead to the destruction of the brand, as it would lose a significant portion of its appeal as a niche product line. Non-OEM lenses in its total lineup are currently in the minority, by a long margin, so it’s not a likely scenario now, but it’s something that’s worth keeping an eye on.

Anyone else think tamron might be testing the waters for are entry into the Pentax market. With Sigma gone they'd have the AF section of the Pentax third party market to themselves. Mind you 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. We all wonder if Jun Hirakawahas something to do with that. In any case, Tamron with Pentax supporting their in house design team will have many more sales as an 3rd party designer than Pentax could hope for. The issue being, you have a design team to develop the lens. How many lenses can you sell. IN this case, all of Pentax plus whatever you can scrounge from the other manufacturers.

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.

Tamron and Sigma both maintained their practice of having Pentax glass the same as their other mounts. Maybe this is just what they would have had to charge to keep dong Pentax. We'll probably never know.

[RobA_Oz]

Anyone else think tamron might be testing the waters for are entry into the Pentax market. With Sigma gone they'd have the AF section of the Pentax third party market to themselves. Mind you 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. We all wonder if Jun Hirakawahas something to do with that. In any case, Tamron with Pentax supporting their in house design team will have many more sales as an 3rd party designer than Pentax could hope for. The issue being, you have a design team to develop the lens. How many lenses can you sell. IN this case, all of Pentax plus whatever you can scrounge from the other manufacturers.

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.

Tamron and Sigma both maintained their practice of having Pentax glass the same as their other mounts. Maybe this is just what they would have had to charge to keep dong Pentax. We'll probably never know.

Tamron has, like Sigma, been putting a deal of effort into the MILC market (there’s a pun in there, I know), so you’d have to wonder about how long it will keep up its DSLR stream, particularly the APS-C component. I suspect it’ll see some of us out, as there are lots of good DSLR bodies out in the world, that will be needing cheaper lenses for their second and subsequent owners, while MILC body adopters hang onto their adapted OEM DSLR lenses.

The situation with Tokina is interesting, too. Obviously, their experience with Pentax has been good, if a little limited, but being a smaller player (even if they are owned by Kenko) their design team probably suffers from similar constraints. The suggestion here is that Ricoh is using Tamron designs to allow Pentax to license their own designs to Tokina, while making money at both ends of the situation. If so, it’s a neat business strategy, and it fits with Ricoh’s desire to have its divisions pay a dividend, without any subsidy from the rest of the company – something that Sony couldn’t be accused of, I believe.

[Biff]

Argument - Monty Python - YouTube

Can we move on people....

Well, apparently. . .


I don't know that much technical stuff, but with all the buzz and good information in this thread and the News & Rumors thread I've pretty much changed my mind from the PLM to this lens. Whoever makes it.