Lens Prices

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Michael E., you took the thoughts right out of my head. I happened to be doing some browsing on Amazon today and decided to scope out various lenses just to see what the going rates are. I specifically looked for the Tokina 35/2.8 macro, and like you said, it is <em>substantially</em> less expensive than the Pentax version. I suppose we could get into a debate of how many of these Tokina sells for Canon vs. how many Pentax sells (obviously there are a lot more Canon owners in the world), and what the costs are for the superior design/build quality of the Pentax version, but I'm having a hard time believing that the Pentax version should cost more than <em>twice</em> as much as the Canon version. Especially since the Canon version has an internal focus motor.</p>

<p>I also searched for the Tokina 16-50 and 50-135 and couldn't find them, but the last time I looked (maybe a year ago?) they were significantly less than their Pentax counterparts... but perhaps not as huge of a price difference as what we're seeing today. I remember thinking to myself that the Tokina 35/2.8 macro and 50-135 in Nikon mount were surprisingly good bargains, given their optical quality. </p>

<p>Is Pentax's game to lure us in with well-spec'd affordable bodies and then rape us on lens prices? Seems like they're taking a page out of the inkjet printer manufacturers' playbooks.</p>

<p>Also consider that during the past year or two, Tamron has chosen to ignore Pentax mount with most of their new lenses. This, too, is nudging me closer to Nikon, I'm afraid.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>R.T., the only aspect of the Pentax 35mm macro design/build being superior is the quickshift focusing and maybe the integral pullout hood. But the Tokina feels sturdier built (I'm looking at both together). The AF><MF is a push/pull ring at the end of the lens which I have not found to be a lot worse than quickshift, and the glass is recessed enough to be as effective as an integral pullout hood.</p>

<p>The 16-50mm and the 50-135mm Tokina counterparts are now discontinued. In the Canon universe, most third party lenses have highly diminished status and related market value, regardless of their quality. The 50-135mm is fairly hard to find and sells for a song. It also is bombproof and has an excellent tripod mounting ring which Pentax should have included in the DA* model. The 16-50mm is even harder to find and unlike the sister lens, it is not highly regarded. The Tokina 12-24mm however, is still popular enough for Tokina to issue a revised second version. And of course the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 really should be out in K-mount, it is very popular and damn good.</p>

<p>My goal in purchasing these lenses was not the bargain, but to replicate my standard Pentax zoom lens setup (plus the 35mm macro) for event work with the 7D. Unlike Pentax, Canon has never really gotten the advantages of specifically designing a lens system for cropped-sensor bodies, so these Tokina lenses are advantageous. I often get questioned about them from other Canon 7D shooters who are trying to deal with 70-200mm zooms--outstanding optics but they are simply not quite wide enough and a bit too long (and shooting at f4 max not fast enough) for covering certain activities. </p>

<p>I originally intended adding Canon for shooting sports and birds, but ended up getting more value by selling my Pentax standard zooms and "exchanging" them for Tokina versions quite profitably. It's a little strange, but it has worked out well.</p>

<p>That all said, I have this simmering thought of selling off all my Pentax and Canon stuff for the new Nikon D800 and about four lenses. </p>

<p>ME</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>DA 70mm Limited, what was the previous price? It's now $699 at Adorama and B&H. Should have bought earlier this spring. Might have to consider a Rokinon 85mm now, which is fine since I've installed the Katzeye on my K-5.</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

RT: I think you're right -- make it WR and improve focusing, the 17-70 probably would make more friends. Pentax has

often used the 17-70 and 18-135 in K-7 and K-5 beauty shots...but seem to be reluctant to offer these $500-plus-ish

lenses discounted in a camera kit. Nikon has found a way to make a fairly decent 18-105 sellable in kits (though these

kits add more than $100-150 to the body-only price. At least Pentax usually bundles the WR version with the K-5/7. The

WR versions at least offer a bit better feel & build.

 

Unfortunately despite the highish price it appears that the 18-135 isn't as good (though smaller & WR) than the extended

zoom ratio Nikkors. It's a bit like the Canon, sort of weak on the longer end.

[john_behrends]

<p>Well my friends this has cured my LBA!</p>

[tomadakis]

<p>I love Pentax but this changes the rules of the game.</p>

[htarragon]

<p>Well, I just sprung for a K-5 and that's it for a loong while. I've got a 10-24 Tamron, 18-55 Pentax, 50-200 & 50-300 Pentax and 90mm Tamron macro. A fast long lens would be nice but heavy , long lenses are not appealing to me. I think that I've got enough for my needs and I'm certainly glad I bought them before the price increases. My next camera purchase will be a P&S although I hate holding a camera at arms length to compose and focus.<br>

This is a sad thread for us and Pentax.</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Howard: a few days ago Amazon was selling the Panasonic LX-5 for $320, which seemed like a great deal, and I was more than a little tempted. It's now back up to $360... but if you're in the market for a quality P&S, I'd suggest keeping an eye on it. The price may come back down.</p>

<p>(I'd prefer an Olympus XZ-1, which surprisingly has a sharper lens than the LX-5's Leica-branded lens, but the XZ-1 is still selling for $490. If it ever comes down to $399 or less, that's the one I'd recommend over the LX-5.)</p>

[htarragon]

<p>R.T. - I'll keep an eye out, but I've got months to go before I pay off the K-5 and I want to take a class in the summer! I think I need to close my eyes to ads for a while :-)<br>

Thanks for the info.<br>

Howard</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>I totally understand! :-) I'd like to get another year out of my K100D before I replace it. I've had it for six years and I think I've gotten my money's worth, but hanging onto it for another year would give me more time to save up for a D7000... or perhaps a "K-02", which [crossing my fingers] would have a built-in EVF.</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Wow! I'd heard that they'd hiked the prices but had no idea it was <em><strong>that</strong></em> drastic. All of a sudden, my foolish lens-buying binge looks like genius--Clara's college fund has appreciated by 50% overnight! Fortunately, I'm pretty much out of the lens market but I really don't understand Ricoh's thinking on this. </p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Is there any possibility that these lenses were actually being manufactured in the Tokina factory, and that Tokina decided to jack up what they were charging to Pentax -- forcing Pentax to pass that hike on to the consumer?</p>

<p>If so, it would certainly behoove Pentax to reopen (or rebuild, if it's gone) their old lensmaking facility.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

Interesting thought, especially since tokina discontinued their 16-50 and 50-135.

[tom_price1]

Because of tax considerations, companies generally dislike keeping a lot of expensive inventory on the books. If sales

slow precipitously, we can expect some price drops in the next year or two.

[michael_elenko]

I think Ricoh is managing the perception of the Pentax brand upward from its former bargain status. The relative cost-

to-market positioning of the two most recent camera bodies paved the way. Now the lenses are in Nikon/Canon

country.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if prices continue upward to be closer in perception to Leica. If you are selling relatively small

volumes of product, then might as well project more exclusivity.

 

ME

[john_behrends]

<p>Michael E. might have a great point about price and perception. The higher the price must mean the better the gear or the quality of the output. I have a feeling this may backfire. Shouldn't the pricing of the 645D escalate also? Hmmm....</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<blockquote>

<p>I think Ricoh is managing the perception of the Pentax brand upward</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh great: "Pentax--the Camera of the 1%" ;~\ Well, if you're going to be a niche brand, might as well choose a cushy niche, I guess. Still, I'd think that raising prices has to be accompanied by other maneuvers (like, say, <em>marketing</em>?) as part of a general strategy (but perhaps it makes sense to re-set the price point in advance of that push.)</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Pentax marketing, even under Ricoh, continues to befuddle and boggle.</p>

<p>Perhaps their <em>internal</em> strategy is to make the Pentax brand pay for itself. It's common in larger corporations that some brands are subsidized by other brands or additional income-generating activities. Perhaps Hoya was able to keep lens prices relatively low because they could provide glass components at cost.</p>

<p>That was then, this is now.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I'm with Dave- my excesses while the rebate programs were on a few years back now seem like I had an ESP glimpse into the future! I did have an "I'd better get it now" feeling.</p>

<p>Indeed, some 3rd party offerings now seem even more attractive, yet Sigma has had substantial price increases over the past year or so.</p>

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>Well this is sad. My next camera might very well be another brand. :(</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>I'm not suggesting anyone switch brands, far from it. No matter how outrageous I think some of these prices are. The grass isn't always greener with others and with some positives there are negatives as well. Things like even more expensive top end zooms, no in body SR (except Sony) etc.</p>

<p>That being said, IMHO, Nikon is the most logical brand for a Pentaxian shooter to consider. The dual wheel design on both brands is the same and the learning curve is lower. Then you look at lenses like the 35mm f1.8 ($200), 50mm f1.8 ($129), 85mm f1.8 ($350-400) and so on. These are all very good primes and really cheap compared to any other brands. Plus there is lots of access to the 3rd party lenses.</p>

<p>But I'd caution a move. These new prices might be a lot higher than we've been used to but they are still lower than many of the competitions offerings.</p>

[john_behrends]

<p>I'm not planning a move, I've been with Pentax since about 1979. I'm just pissed that I didn't buy a couple of lenses before the price increase. </p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>I have a feeling Pentax just said we can't subsidize the US market anymore. Look at the USD value vs international currencies...it isn't pretty. </p>

<p>No doubt some of it might have had to do with Hoya keeping glass prices down, but I think the rest of the world was paying these prices for some time. The US market isn't much bigger (is it bigger) than other countries with Pentax gear, so I am doubtful even if they lose some market share in the US it is going to matter much.</p>

<p>I could see if the US was like 50% of Pentax total sales and they subsidized us for the market share but I think Europe has a higher market share of Pentax users, as does Asia. </p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Justin, Europe's prices are higher because they have higher import tariffs and higher sales tax. Also, It wouldn't surprise me if B&H sold more Pentax cameras than most European countries, which would allow B&H to bulk purchase at a lower per unit price than many European countries could. Oh, and not only does Europe have a 16-18% sales tax, but buyers actually pay it, while most US buyers don't pay their 5-8% sales tax on internet orders.</p>

<p>I don't think Europe has subsidised US buyers.</p>

[johan_ingles_le_nobel]

What's interesting is that a lot of Pentax forums used to be full of threads waxing lyrical about Pentax lenses, extolling

their virtues. Since this move, Pentax users the world over now seem to be falling over themselves pointing out the bad

points about Pentax lenses. When your own brand adherents say your lenses are a bit rubbish then I think you've got a

bit of a problem on your hands. Let's see what Ned writes about it.