Tokina AT-X 12-24mm f/4.0 DX II (with DC motor)

[hinman]

<p>This was discussed in <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/117464-dc-motor-tech-tokina-tokina-pentax-relationship.html">PF news and rumors</a>. Of course, all the Pentaxians will stress that the DC motor comes from Pentax. But if the Tokina is using the similar technology in Pentax new DC motor, why is Pentax and Tokina sharing so much in common on the lens. I am confused as I see some arguments stating that Hoya owns Tokina, is that true? Can someone who knows the company background enlighten me.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/117464-dc-motor-tech-tokina-tokina-pentax-relationship.html"><img src="http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/pentax-news-rumors/72739d1286545685-dc-motor-tech-tokina-tokina-pentax-relationship-1224-jpg" alt="" width="434" height="375" /></a><br>

.<br /> picture link to <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/117464-dc-motor-tech-tokina-tokina-pentax-relationship.html">PF news and rumors thread on DC motor</a></p>

<p>And when I study the Tokina lens in Nikon mount, I am very surprised and encouraged in a number of ways except the absence of SR but I do find the cost of ownership much to my advantages, especially in the used market</p>

<ul>

<li>The Tokina 12-24 f/4.0 in Nikon mount on DX II with the DC motor cost $499 in Adorama whereas the former version costs $399. Both can be bought new. The Pentax DA 12-24 costs $699.00 new. Does the MC coating cost $300 alone?</li>

<li>The <a href="http://www.adorama.com/TN35MNKAF.html">Tokina 35mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro in Nikon</a> mount costs $279.95 whereas the <a href="http://www.adorama.com/PX3528DAM.html">Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 limited</a> costs $699.95 on regular price and special price is $539.95. It is almost doubled, again, is the SMC coating and the SR feature doubling the cost?</li>

<li>Last but not least, the Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 in Nikon mount can't be found new, but used copy are found in $300.</li>

<li>And there is the similar <a href="http://www.adorama.com/TN1017NKAF.html">Tokina 10-17mm fisheye</a> which cost about the same in Nikon mount for $579 whereas the <a href="http://www.adorama.com/PX1017AFD.html">Pentax DA 10-17mm</a> cost $649.95 and special price for $514.95</li>

</ul>

<p>What is the close relationship between Hoya, Pentax and Tokina? Why is all the Pentaxian gems priced so much lower in Nikon mount and why is the good stuff as in DC motor goes available right the way in Nikon mount whereas there is no equivalent in the Pentax DA 12-24. I find it interesting but on the other hand, I find this beneficial to Nikon and Canon consumers.</p>

[ukhov]

<p>Say ,$100 bucks and your lens motor wedge by TOKINA ! Hin ,it hard to understand how with DC new Pentax DA 18-135 can be WR?</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I've seen Pentax's patent info for their new DC motor...who's to say that it's the same thing? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_motor">'DC motor'</a> is a generic term for a type of electric motor that runs on direct current and is nothing new itself. For whatever reason, Pentax has decided to use the term to differentiate their latest approach from the SDM lenses that preceded it...time will tell whether it's better than SDM for customers or not.</p>

<p>If you're shooting Nikon and can enjoy good Tokina glass for less than the cost of Pentax glass or Nikkors, the more power to you. As for pricing, I'm sure Pentax sees their glass as competing with the other camera-makers (Nikon, Oly, Canon, etc.) and don't feel the need to accept the reduced profit margin and longer warrantee periods that third-party lensmakers do in order to move their product.</p>

<p>I've said this many times on several forums when I see this topic come up--people keep saying that they're the same company but I remain unconvinced. Somebody prove to me that there's real cooperation between Hoya and Tokina. The only evidence I've seen is that they share a USA distributor THKPhoto (along with Slik, Kenko) for photographic equipment. That and there have been a couple of lens collaborations with Pentax, but no solid evidence about who designed what...and <em>none at all after </em>Pentax was bought by Hoya (someone can feel free to correct me, but I believe most if not all those would have been completed or in-progress pre-merger).</p>

<p>The reason for in-lens motors for Nikon mount is clearly to make the lens available to the newer Nikon bodies (D40, D60, D5000, D3000, D3100, etc.) that no longer include in-body AF motors. Note that Tamron has similarly needed to start making in-lens motors available on their more popular lenses for Nikon in the last few years. Superior performance was never enough motivation in either case, they had to be pushed.</p>

[mugundhan_varadanarayanan]

<p>Hinman,<br>

I guess Hoya/Pentax thinks "Pentax" brand name is very special compared to their Tokina equivalents or may be Tokina marketing exectives are just smarter posting competitive prices that can lure hardcore Nikon/ Canon lens fans<br>

On an unrelated note, the Pentax lens prices are too high in the past 2 years, Ned bunnell claims they are reading forums but for some reason, this does not translate to reasonable prices while similar speced lens is available for lower cost through Tokina brand. For a budget priced photographer, Pentax system is no more a value... In Nikon, the body is priced higher with availabality of reasonably priced lenses in both Nikon and third party mounts while Pentax bodies are very good value but equivalent lenses cost one arm and leg<br>

Shake reduction and Weather sealed bodies are the only distinguishing factors and I wonder for how long</p>

 

[mountainvisions]

<p>While SR CANNOT be added to the cost of a Pentax lens by Pentax, as a buyer one must be cognizant that you are getting a several hundred dollar value. If you don't care about that value than that is your right as a consumer, if you do (and I do) than you have to at least note that you need to be comparing the lenses to Nikons VR mount lenses. Unfortunately while you can argue this, the fact is it's true from the consumer end of the argument. Of course you can criticize Pentax for playing a game, and that is fine, but as a consumer your $1200 60-250 for instance is still a great value compared to Canons equivalent option or Nikons equivalent option, and that 60-250 is perhaps the most over priced of ALL Pentax telephotos. Believe me, I know because I'm planning to buy one!</p>

<p>So while Pentax isn't spending more on the lens, the fact you are is irrelevant. Why? You get the SR while the Nikon lens doesn't NO MATTER WHAT! Yep, no matter what you do as a Nikon owner your Tokina 35mm f/2.8 is never going to have SR. Nor is your 12-24mm. But the Pentax shooter does get that out of the box, and it improves with future camera generations. The K-7 was substantially better as SR, especially with wide angles than the K10D and K20D, and we all know I raved about hand holding at 1/4th second with my 10-20mm with the K10D, so that isn't to say the K10D was bad, just that the K-7 is even better.</p>

<p>As far as the Tokina lenses, I went through this myself a few years ago. Michael Kuhne pointed out that while the lenses are very similar, the Pentax models usually offered better IQ. That is THEY WERE NOT IDENTICAL.The Pentax 12-24mm did outscore the Tokina, check pop photo.</p>

<p>ALSO...PENTAX DA* are weather sealed...Tokina is not. Add that into the cost of the 50-135mm...I guess you can put a bag over the Tokina and hope for the best, afterall at 1/2 the cost you can buy 2. But the point of sealing isn't that you need it, it's that it's peace of mind when you DO need it.</p>

<p>Now the Tokina's weren't dogs, so it's definitely debatable if the Pentax copy was worth 2-3X as much. You know my feelings on overpaying for a small bump in already good IQ.</p>

<p>To me, paying 3X as much for a fractional bump in IQ is like the backpackers that buy a $100 titanium put to save .05oz over a similar aluminum pot that cost $20. It's foolish and quite frankly wasteful unless you have nothing better to blow $80 on. For my money I'd rather donate it to a conservation alliance or a dog shelter. But hey, different peoples brains work differently. </p>

<p>Any way, I think pricing is irrelevant. You price at what the market is willing to bear. If you price to high you sell less lenses. To me one of the big reasons Pentax has an edge right now is the in camera lens corrections. This alone makes me say, "Do I really want to mess with lightroom profiles or PT Lens, when my RAW files can be ready to go the second they are saved to the card." Plus, I have no doubts Pentax can do a better job removing CA and distortion from a Pentax designed lens on a Pentax designed camera than a lightroom profile can.</p>

<p>As far as pricing though, Pentax DA and Limited glass is tops among lenses. Not every lens is better than the competition, but there are no dogs in the pack. On the flip side Pentax does offer lots of value glass. The kit WRs are exceptional as kit lenses and they cost almost nothing. I can get both with a little shopping for around $250. And optically they are better than anything Nikon or Canon offer at that price.</p>

<p><em>So remember, you want professional glass, you pay professional prices, but you can also do quite well with a K-7 and a WR kit for $1100 total including 3 stops average shake reduction, if you can build that kit with Nikon or Canon I'd like you to prove it! Otherwise I win the argument that Pentax still offers great value and a vertical product line that allows people to move upward into better quality optics for similar cost to Canikon! Pentax is the American dream of camera kits! <br /></em></p>

<p> </p>

[ukhov]

<p>Bravo!</p>

[mugundhan_varadanarayanan]

<p>Justin,<br>

Very convincing arguments, I stand corrected :)<br>

One thing I dont understand is Pentax lenses have all appreciated 50-100% over the past 2 years. Does this mean they were sold at a loss for all these years and Hoya came in and decided that they cannot afford it?<br>

Mugundhan</p>

[hinman]

<p>I know it first hand how useful and dear is the SR feature. Last weekend, I had a local meet-up with buyers of two of my long lens with Photosniper 300mm f/4.5 and Tamron SP 70-210mm f/3.5 adaptall-2 (19AH). It was closer to 7:00pm and I was demoing the lens in wide open apertures ranging from 1/6 to 1/30 sec shutter. And at least 2/3 of the test pictures are acceptable for viewing. And the buyer and myself are very fond of SR and it is really the Pentax pride to have SR for all lenses.<br /> .<br /> However, I find lesser need on SR in the shorter end of the focal range. If I shoot mostly in 100-400 ISO type of lighting, I seldom see the big need on SR. But of course, for indoor the SR is the charmer for every lenses that I use.<br /> .<br /> Back to the pricing, I still think that Pentax does worse on pricing. The SR feature is built into its body and lens prices without the built in VR as in Nikon or the IS in Canon should come as a free feature to consumers. I don't think Pentax use that to the disadvantages of consumer in making more profits. I still remember the good old days when the FA 50mm f/1.4 was priced for $199 new from any camera store. Gone are the days that the FA limited was priced from 400 to 600. I was mostly surprised at the price of Pentax DA 12-24 which is not weather sealed like the DA* and yet, it gets priced much higher than the Tokina 12-24 f/4.0 equivalent.<br /> .<br /> Anyway, I am NOT complaining but I just want to share the knowledge and discovery when I step out of the Pentax zone. Nikon is very expensive in its Nikon lenses especially in the longer end but I am very surprised to find 3rd party alternatives that share a great deal of optical designs with Pentax. Also some of the primes in Nikon <a href="http://www.adorama.com/NK3518G.html">35mm f/1.8</a> and <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/84151-USA/Nikon_1931_AF_Nikkor_85mm_f_1_8D.html">85mm f/1.8D</a> are reasonably low priced in the $185.00 and $429.00.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Having not read the posts other than the op, I will say this and take it as if it where a grain of salt. I keep reading in Nikon forums that many of the Tokina lenses like the 50-135F/2.8 is a DA*50-135 with out the SDM motor and smc coatings. I hear this of many of Tokina lenses and that 12-24 is another that gets mentioned. Most folks seem to believe that Tokina is owned by Hoya. Personally, I do not know. </p>

[hinman]

<p>Many of you love the FA limited lenses and I am one of the sucker who hold on to those FA limited and 10-17 fisheye lenses even at the exit door. I see this thread in <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=36555594">Pentax fired Jun Hirakawa!</a> and if I am not mistaken, he was the original optical designer for the following lenses. Sourced from <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=zh-TW&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.xitek.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Fthreadid%3D791689">this Google Translation </a></p>

 

<ul>

<li>

<ul>

<li>FA ★ 80-200 F2.8 </li>

<li>FA★85mm F1.4(IF) <br /></li>

<li>FA☆24mm F2.0AL <br /></li>

<li>FA28mm F2.8AL <br /></li>

<li>FA 77mm F1.8 Limited <br /></li>

<li>FA 43mm F1.9 Limited <br /></li>

<li>DA 40mm F2.8 Limited DA 40mm F2.8 Limited</li>

<li>DA☆ 55mm F1.4 SDM DA ☆ 55mm F1.4 SDM</li>

<li>DA 10-17mm FISH-EYE DA 10-17mm FISH-EYE</li>

<li>DA 14mm f2.8 DA 14mm f2.8</li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

<p>Not to start another rumor, but this is quite a sad piece of news if someone who designed the 43, 77, 40, 10-17 along with other outstanding optics actually leaves the Pentax company.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Hin,<br /><br />I hate to break it to you, business is about profits. You don't make profits you go out of business. Pentax is a very small volume company, it needs to increase it's profit margin.<br /><br />it's not Pentax fault Nikon and Canon went the expensive route to add SR.<br /><br />all we have to do to end this discusion is figure out why a $10 piece of filet mignon cost me $30 at a restaurant. Or why my dentist charges $150 for $5 worth of anesthetic and filling material. <br /><br /><br /></p>

[ukhov]

<p>-and we do need other guy -who can do 400mm and up!</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>btw, pentax isn't competing with tokina or sigma, or it shouldn't be. Does nikon or canon. When you buy a Pentax, Nikon, Canon or Olympus lens, you are buying a premium product.<br /><br />it's the difference between buying Dr Thunder at Walmart and Dr Pepper. Dr. Pepper doesn't hae to compete, it's the premium product.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Hin, one more thing--if you <em>really</em> care about the cost of all this stuff you'll keep what you have and stop buying and selling...unless you find that you're usually reselling for a profit. When buying new equipment though, that's usually not the case.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>One thing I dont understand is Pentax lenses have all appreciated 50-100% over the past 2 years. Does this mean they were sold at a loss for all these years and Hoya came in and decided that they cannot afford it?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that 50-100% is probably an exaggeration though there may be some specific prices that have risen more than others. Price hikes weren't limited to Pentax equipment--prices went up industry-wide, probably in part a correction due to foreign exchange rate changes, perhaps some inflation too. Possibly production and materials costs have risen too over the years? </p>

<p>For example, pretty sure that when I bought my DA12-24/4 maybe 3 years ago it was $600 rather than $700. The FA43 I bought a few months later was probably $450 or so rather than the current price of $570. And of course the FA50/1.4 (again, probably about three years ago) was $230 while these are now $360 (I imagine this is the kind of example you had in mind). </p>

<p>On the other hand, the value of some of the more expensive discontinued equipment I've purchased over the last few years has disappointingly probably fallen quite a bit in some cases--for example the FA24-90 and FA20-35 were worth ~$400 when i bought them but now I expect I'd have trouble fetching $300 for either...not really sure why because they're really no more common now than they were then.</p>

<p>Something to bear in mind is that lenses are not like electronics and computer equipment that seems to get cheaper and more capable every year. The optics are a relatively mature technology where even after R&D costs have been recouped, production, labor, and material costs probably increase from year to year.</p>

 

[mountainvisions]

<p>Sad, but people leave all the time.</p>

<p>Innovation doesn't come from complacency. You need new blood sometimes. BTW, I'm starting to wonder how much attention we should pay to these computer translations. They've already caused a lot of misinformation. I really dislike misinformation as it benefits no one. </p>

<p>Oddly out of all the fine lenses on that list I own only 1, with no plans for any of the others.</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>I just finished looking at the Tokina lens all their AT-X lens series only come in canon or Nikon mounts nothing else listed , so how can you compare them with Pentax prices:</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>all their AT-X lens series only come in canon or Nikon mounts nothing else listed , so how can you compare them with Pentax prices:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because most of them share the same design (optical formula) as their Pentax equivalents.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Lauren, the Tokina 35/2.8 Macro, 12-24/4, 16-50/2.8, 50-135/2.8, 10-17/3.5-4.5 fisheye zoom share optical designs with the Pentax-branded lenses of the same spec but have different physical builds, possibly different lens coatings--so they do get compared...and the Tokina editions are significantly cheaper than the Pentax-branded versions in most markets. Every couple of months, another thread like this one comes up where people start speculating/assuming certain things about the nature of the partnerships & arrangements between the companies.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Let's not forget the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro! It's equivalent to the non-WR DFA 100mm f/2.8 macro.</p>

<p>Andrew, the coatings are most definitely different. That's one thing no lens maker shares.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>Because most of them share the same design (optical formula) as their Pentax equivalents.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Similar...not identical. If so then the test would be identical. I doubt in a bench test the coatings can have that much an impact. Now in the real world this is a definite advantage.</p>

<p>BTW, it would be interesting if someone had the time to compare and compile the reviews for all the Pentax tokina equivalents and then list the differences such as distortion, vignetting, and SQF data.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Yall remind me of the big bang theory :), Which is one of my favorite shows.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>Yall remind me of the big bang theory :), Which is one of my favorite shows.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It used to be my wife's favourite show, until she realised she was Penny and the show was practically her life. Now she hates it.</p>

<p>Truth hurts.</p>