Jump to content

Lens Prices


john_behrends

Recommended Posts

<p>Just checked prices on Pentax lenses and almost fell off my chair!<br>

Glad I bought the DFA 100mm when I did, it is now about $300 more than when I got mine in January 2012.<br>

I was seriously considering purchasing the 55mm DA*, but will have to wait at this point. It is now priced at $799. <br>

Not sure if this bodes well for us Pentaxians. Probably increases the value of what lenses we do own though.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Maybe, maybe not. If the system gets over priced, people won't see value in expanding and the prices will fall for used gear as people sell off.</p>

<p>Personally I don't care, a lot of people "invest" in camera equipment, but like housing, cameras are generally not a guaranteed investment.</p>

<p>we've been talking for years about this massive selloff looming, and I haven't seen it. Rest assured, if it comes, I'm buying in. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>Boy</em>, are they shooting themselves in the foot..! After the announcement of a few new lenses to come, especially the much needed<strong> 1.4x</strong>, I had decided to return to Pentax. Even ordered and received a K5. It went straight back. I've had it. <br />A word as to the new lenses... 560mm f/5.6..? Sounds a bit <em>long in the tooth</em> to me. That would bring us to +800mm, sensor crop taken into account. I wonder why none of the manufacturers give us a 400mm anymore, except for the EF 400mm f/5.6 which is a fairly <em>dated </em>piece o'glass. No IS. If only Tokina would redesign their <em>legendary</em> <strong>compact 400</strong> (had at least a dozen of them with various systems, over the years) for dg SLR's..!<br>

Maybe in my next life.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Wolf.<br>

A 400mm f5.6 would be nice, but I, for one am delighted to see a prime in the +500mm range. If I hadn't just purchased a 600mm f5.6 A I would be one of the first persons standing in line waiting for the lens. The only thing my lens lacks is autofocus but that isn't deal breaker for me.<br>

Yes, I wish the lenses were cheaper. But I think that's true of all things. Reality bites. I hope they come back down.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If anybody wants to see a list of the price increases for each lens, <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/pentax-lens-price-increase-2012.html">they can find it here at PF</a>. A few choice lenses:</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>DA* 16-50mm f/2.8:</strong> From $799.95 to $1,499.95 (<strong>87.5%</strong> increase).</li>

<li><strong>DA* 50-135mm<strong> f/2.8</strong>:</strong> From $849.95 to $1,599.95 (<strong>88.2%</strong> increase).</li>

<li><strong>DA* 60-250mm f/4:</strong> From $1295.95 to $1999.95 (<strong>54.3%</strong> increase).</li>

<li><strong>DFA 100mm f/2.8 macro:</strong> From $599.95 to $849.95 (<strong>41.7%</strong> increase).</li>

<li><strong>DA 14mm f/4 Ltd:</strong> From $699.95 to $949.95 (<strong>35.7%</strong> increase).</li>

</ul>

<p>On the other hand, the FA and FA Limiteds remain at the same price...so now the Ltds don't seem so expensive, huh? :-D</p>

<p>I'm laughing because it keeps me from going crazy.</p>

<p>One question for Pentax: Has the reliability of the DA* 16-50 increased by 87.5%?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Miserere just sent me the list of highway robbery, err I mean price increases that Pentax is now asking.</p>

<p>This deserves capitol letters. THE DA16-50MM IS A F***ING PIECE OF CRAP AT $799. In no way worth $1499 now. I can't say that loud enough or emphatically enough. Lousy focus, barrel distortion, nowhere near sharp enough (decentering), not wide enough, not long enough, poorly built. ARRRG I could go on. Having owned 3 of these paperweights, choosing to raise the price on this lens when it should be $499, would keep me from ever looking a the line seriously again.Why? It's a cornerstone lens and focal range for any brand, APSc or FF.</p>

<p>Now, while I think this is outrageous, the other brands are also robbers. Nikon, which I shoot now, had raised the prices on most lenses after the earthquake and there's no sign of any reductions. For me it's forced looking only at the 3rd party options. I don't shoot above 100mm very often but need a 70-200mm. Having recently sold my Sigma 70-200mm, the only choice is Tamron because with the Nikon at $2400, they ain't getting my money. Tamron's 28-75 at $499 vs the Nikon 24-70mm at $1900, make the choice obvious.Oh and the Canon is $2300.00</p>

<p>So that quick comparison begs the question. Is Sigma and Tamron (also for many - Tokina) loosing money or are the name brand company's (add Sony to this list as well), ripping us off just cause we drank the koolaide and only 'name brand will do'.</p>

<p>These prices force a different choice when buying. Consider the 3rd party lineups that support the camera body you might buy before buying any brand. I you dont have much choice in 3rd party alternatives, choose another brand of body. That in itself, weakens choosing Pentax.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Matt Burt wrote:<br>

FWIW the Tamron 28-75 is very nice. This move could be great for the 3rd party manufacturers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd point out that Sigma has been pricing its new lenses much higher than the models they're replacing, and much closer to the OEM pricing than they used to be. Let's wait to see whether Tamron follows suit; they've announced a new 24-70mm f/2.8 (with image stabilisation) and I doubt it'll be priced at $500.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Holy shit! And the DA 16-50 was one of the few lenses I sort of wanted. Though I have been waiting for the successor.</p>

<p>The other being a DA 60-250 (don't really need it, kinda need the 16-50 since the 28-70 2.8 I have is a little long at the short end for me).<br>

<br />Hmm, I guess I don't need it. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Miserere wrote:<br>

Let's wait to see whether Tamron follows suit; they've announced a new 24-70mm f/2.8 (with image stabilisation) and I doubt it'll be priced at $500.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well whaddya know, just today Tamron announced pricing and availability: $1,300 (and confirmed at B&H right now), available for Canikon and Sony. No mention of Pentax.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Pentax hasn't been the affordable brand for some time; this just cements it. (Or cements it for those in the USA when the rest of us had the jump on "expensive" by 2-3 years.)</p>

<p>Peter, I always thought the lowly DA 16-45mm was a better lens than the DA*16-50mm. Sure, the latter has a one stop advantage and weather-sealing, but the couple of times I used it I found it quite poor (as you say). OTOH the DA 16-45 renders impeccable images with no fears about the AF failing!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Few like to talk about it publicly, but it seems obvious <em>they're</em> trying to take us, meaning customers around the world, to the cleaners in order to afford a certain, and certainly necessary clean-up and re-building job...<br>

Justin, I suggest you get the highly rated Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical, while it's still available here & there in its non VC version..! Great lens, great ratings, usually comes with a very prolonged warranty.<br>

Check out: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/637-tamron175028d7000?start=2</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Robin, I entirely agree with you on the 16-45mm. A superior lens in all respects. I owned it all through the time I had the DA* and used it as a backup but it often was the primary lens. I actually had to use it in a rain storm while shooting a wedding and realized that it could take the weather just fine. After that, the DA* was gone. </p>

<p>I agree that all OEM brands have really taken advantage of us. Some of these lenses are excellent, no question. They are also, not worth anywhere close to the prices being asked. Look at this logically. Is the DA* 16-50mm in terms of material, R&D cost, engineering and manufacturing cost really worth more than a K-5? Of course not. Is the Nikon 70-200mm VRII cost more to build than a D700? Also factor in that many of these lenses far outlive the camera bodies with a 2-3 year sales window. They can design a lens that is sold for 5-10+ years without any further input costs, thus amortizing the R&D cost over a greater period of time. The lens prices should remain stable or even drop a bit over time, not increase. It's taking advantage just a bit too much.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A correction from Mis' list above, it was the DA14/2.8 that's now $950. The DA15/4 Limited increased from $510 to $650.</p>

<p>I saw this on Tuesday night and jumped on one of the last $1200 DA* 60-250/4 available on e-bay from a popular Canadian seller. I'd already been thinking of getting one this year, but it wasn't going to happen if the price was any higher than that (list price now two grand!).</p>

<p>It arrived yesterday, and it's a pretty impressive hunk of equipment. Hope I don't need warranty service b/c that may be difficult.</p>

<p>I still sometimes pine for a 50-135 but not at that price. Unlike the 60-250, these are relatively common on the used market (though I expect those prices will rise too). I suspect the old prices are probably gone forever but there may be significant rebates at some point. Other posters here have a point that Pentaxians aren't alone here -- Nikon and Sony have also had significant price hikes and most new releases from all makes are at higher price points than expected.</p>

<p>While I agree with the premise that the DA* 16-50/2.8 is a bit of an underperformer -- not even clearly better optically than the fast standard zooms from Sigma & Tamron -- should mention that Nikkor 17-55/2.8 (no stabilization!) retails for $1400 and Canon 17-55/2.8 IS (inferior build) goes for $1180. I am doubting that Pentax will keep the DA* 16-50 at this announced level -- there will likely be frequent deals of some sort available. This really is a lens crying out for a "Mk II" though -- some optical improvements and a chance for Pentax to relegate this lenses relatively poor reputation to history.</p>

<p>Count me among the fans of the DA16-45/4. While I hardly use mine now that I have the 17-70/4, this lens remains a screaming bargain -- I'm surprised that Pentax hasn't killed it or jacked up the price. Build quality is relatively low by current standards but it does what its specs say it'll do with flair -- welcome improvement at the wide and long end vs. the kit lens. Good close focus, reliable screwdrive AF with usable focus ring, and cheap for a 16mm wide end.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew wrote:<br>

Build quality is relatively low by current standards but it does what its specs say it'll do with flair</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hopefully the lens doesn't flair <em>that</em> much! :-D</p>

<p>And thanks for pointing out my DA 14mm confusion. I did think 1 grand for an f/4 prime was extra excessive and now I see why.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm surprised they haven't re-released the 17-70 f/4 in a WR version. Seems like they'd sell like hotcakes. It would be an ideal kit lens for the K-5. (Most of you know I'm quite fond of the 18-55, and I'm sure the WR version is great, but there's just something strange about bundling their least-expensive lens with their top tier camera. You don't see Nikon bundling their 18-55 with the D7000 or D300<em>s</em>...)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this is nuts. Guess the fewer number of third party lenses made for K-mount means that Pentax has more

control over the pricing metrics. The DA Ltd 35mm macro goes for $700 on Amazon, yet the Tokina version of the

same lens in EOS mount (as I own both I'll confidently say that they are substantially the same) is selling there for

$313. And I got mine a couple months ago mint for $220. Even better pricing applied to the Tokina versions of the

DA* 50-135mm, & DA 12-24 f4 I picked up for my 7D as well.

 

Wonder what the new 550mm tele is going to cost?

 

ME

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...