Lens Prices

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Johan: people certainly have plenty of unkind things to say about the DA* 16-50, but that's been the case for several years, and part of the reason why people have been so vocal about it is because it's the flagship pro zoom of the Pentax DSLR range. It <em>should</em> have been an excellent (or better than excellent) lens. Instead, it's a "love it or hate it" lens. If you were lucky enough to get an exceptionally good copy, you were in the "love it" camp; if you got a so-so or bad copy, you were in the "hate it" camp. (Hate is a strong word, but it's an expensive lens and people expected it to be great, not mediocre. Iffy customer service from Pentax didn't help, especially when [for example] the SDM motor died within a couple of weeks of the warranty running out, forcing the customer to spend big bucks to have it repaired.)</p>

<p>As far as the other lenses are concerned, I think a lot of people are justifiably upset by the price increases, but I haven't seen (at least not in this thread) anyone suggesting that most (or all) Pentax lenses are rubbish. I think almost everyone here would agree that the Limited lenses are optically and mechanically quite spectacular. It's just upsetting to see some of them DOUBLE in price, especially since they were not inexpensive to begin with. (Most of them were way out of my price range even at their old prices, but now there's absolutely no way I'd ever be able to afford them.)</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Johan,<br>

I agree strongly with R.T. I see comparable complaining about Canon lenses in Canon forums. And besides, do you really think there is a high correlation between Internet forum whining and truth?--especially regarding camera equipment.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Johan,</p>

<p>The only lens I see people complaining about is the 16-50. There are naturally haters of any lens (the DA 21mm is one of those lenses that has a merry band of haters, but a few of us find is pretty awesome).</p>

<p>So, all we are complaining about is that for $1400, we'd expect a Mark 2 version of the 16-50. </p>

[johan_ingles_le_nobel]

That's fair enough... but what I'm seeing is that since this announcement, the general thrust of threads seems to be to

pick holes and find issues with Pentax and the various bits that comprise the system rather than find and write about

reasons to be positive about it - not really what you want your users to be doing. Sure, people complain on all sorts of

forums, but I've personally never seen it to this extent on Pentax forums before. Not an entirely unexpected reaction to

price rises, but still, can't be great when your own users call your brand a bit iffy.

[personalphotos]

<p>How can there be anything positive coming from this? There was only the price increase. Now if they had said:<br>

<em>Today we're increasing prices on the existing line but also introducing a new series of lenses.</em></p>

<p><em>50mm f2 at $149</em><br>

<em>35mm f2 at $200</em><br>

<em>DA*MKII 50-135mm</em><br>

<em>DA*MKII16-50mm</em><br>

<em>85mm f2 at $350</em><br>

<em>Etc<br /></em><br>

And so on. There's nothing with this change that is positive to the existing owners or new buyers.</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>What Peter Zack said.</p>

<p>And the reason why I don't consider this situation comparable to Nikon is because Nikon has been releasing new, great, affordable lenses at the same time they've been raising prices on some of their high-end lenses... and a few of their oldest and most useful lenses (50/1.8 and 28/2.8, for example) are still priced the same today as they were 7-10 years ago. So at least the beginners/students/retirees/poor folks aren't totally screwed in Nikon land. Meanwhile, Pentax doesn't even <em>have</em> a 50/1.8 (1.7) or 28/2.8 anymore... they discontinued them, forcing low-budget Pentax shooters to fend for themselves on the used market where prices continue to climb due to constantly shrinking availability.</p>

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>Well the reality is that if I am forced to pay higher lens costs, then I may just be in the market for a full frame camera that Pentax does not have. Don't get me wrong, I love Pentax, but increasing the price makes the trade off of little to no third party support, etc., just not worth it. Hopefully this will be a short term issue and Pentax will do something to turn this around. And no, I am not leaving Pentax anytime soon since I am two to three years away from another body purchase.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>That's fair enough... but what I'm seeing is that since this announcement, the general thrust of threads seems to be to pick holes and find issues with Pentax and the various bits that comprise the system rather than find and write about reasons to be positive about it - not really what you want your users to be doing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed, but to be fair, a lot of us were/are shooting Pentax because it was the poor mans Leica and a value brand all in one. And yet, we didn't feel like for our specific needs we were sacrificing much. Now it's still the poor mans Leica, but the value brand is gone. Yet, many things aren't fixed. For me, a higher mechanical shutter sync is a must, as well as a 1.4X TC and a 28-30mm prime lens. But these are things we all overlooked for the value aspect of the brand.</p>

<p>This crying about prices is a lot like why I feel a full frame DSLR would have not done much for Pentax. Say they released a $2000 bargain FF body. It wouldn't attract Canikon shooters in droves, and it would get a lot of complaints for being more than the $1000-1500 we are used to for professional level camera bodies. And, no, just because it is the full frame everyone claims to have wanted, wouldn't have changed peoples minds. $2000 would have been too much.</p>

<p>And I agree with Jemal. I think we also have been pretty happy with the supposed benefits (that I believe should still exist) of a smaller system in terms of lens cost. Don't forget, Pentax lenses are cropped sensor glass, not full frame glass. So our prices, even if all things are equal in terms of build and IQ, should be lower. Or go ahead and release a full frame camera with new lenses. </p>

<p> </p>

[shots worth sharing]

<blockquote>

<p>There was only the price increase.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They could at least lengthen the warranty period on cameras and lenses to 3yrs. </p>

[r.t. dowling]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Don't forget, Pentax lenses are cropped sensor glass, not full frame glass."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not all of them. To wit: DFA 50/2.8 Macro, DFA 100/2.8 Macro, FA 31 Ltd, FA 43 Ltd, FA 77 Ltd, possibly the DA* 200 and 300 (I've heard of people using these on film cameras), and possibly the DA 35/2.4... and let's face it, Pentax <em>could</em> easily bring back a lot of their old full frame glass if they wanted to. They just don't want to.</p>

<p>And I agree with Dave: people who are buying Pentax lenses deserve more than a 1-year warranty. If you buy a Nikon 50/1.8 for $130, you get a 5-year warranty. If you buy a Pentax DA* 60-250 for $2000, you get a 1-year warranty. That's downright insulting.</p>

[johan_ingles_le_nobel]

Hmmmm, don't know. I don't disagree with the thrust of the comments, that people think of Pentax as the 'quality' 'value'

brand, heck I'm much the same. Even taking into account the price increases it's still a good brand for people who like to

tinker and experiment. But I do admit that since I'm on an ultramacro binge at the moment there are all sorts of little ways

in which Pentax is lacking, sadly =(.

 

The FF point, not entirely sure about that myself. As in when the 645d was introduced at a whopping 10k the masses

didn't rise up, and the funny thing is, by all accounts that model *hugely* outperformed the sales expectation of Japan hq.

I personally suspect it depends what a FF would be compared to, the APSC bodies and their (lower) costs or the

equivalent C/N bodies and their (higher) cost. And you know I think that just boils down to some sensible marketing

(being a marketer myself).

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I now wonder how sales will do under these new prices? We may see some drop in those prices due to stagnation in sales.</p>

<p>I have for years thought Pentax erred in not retaining their basic moderate-cost primes as Nikon has done, like their excellent FA 50mm f/1.7, FA 35mm f/2, and FA 28mm f/2.8 for example. Now there's only the DA 35mm f/2.4 on the cheap. The FA 50mm f/1.4 is still a decent value, though not the bargain it once was. </p>

<p>There are, however, still many good lens choices at more moderate cost with a Pentax camera body. Some very fine Pentax lenses have so far stayed in the ballpark. There's the already-mentioned DA 16-45mm, which I have always considered a better lens optically and for dependability than the DA* 16-50mm, but minus one stop. The Sigma f/2.8 alternative is well-built, very highly rated, and now with silent AF at a bit over 1/2 the cost of the DA* 16-50mm. The also well-regarded Tamron standard-AF alternative is available at less than $500. The Pentax WR kit lenses have not increased and remain a very good value for what they are. The Pentax WR 18-135mm, which I have and like a lot, has not increased much. Was $500, dropped to $460, now at $530. Its price amongst the competition is justified in its extraordinary build qulity and fast, accurate, silent AF performance. I have found its optical performance in my copy to be surprisingly far better than some test reviews have indicated. This lens is compact, and stays within f/3.5-4.5 up to 70mm with very good quality performance.</p>

<p>The excellent Pentax 12-24mm f/4 still remains at $700 so far. It is a better lens, and cheaper than the newest, slower Sigma 12-24mm! Then there is the well-regarded Sigma 10-20mm at around $500 or so. Tamron has some other fine offerings as well, and have not so far had the price hikes we've seen with many of Sigma's lenses. I wonder about the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, whether its dependability issues have been solved, and about its AF performance with the K-5. Javier reported good results with his K20D some time back. I have not checked the price lately of the Pentax 55-300mm, but for me this has been a lens of exceptional quality and range at a fair price. It keeps to f/4.5 up to 200mm. If the price will be raised, at least it should be upgraded to WR! </p>

<p>There are numerous other lens choices at lower prices, so it is still possible to enjoy a fine Pentax camera body without having to break your bank! </p>

[wolf_weber]

<p><em>Here's the <strong>Deal</strong></em> (or part of it)... <strong>Pentax Q</strong> seems to have turned into a <em>flop of sorts</em>. Huge discounting going on overseas. Soon here..? Perhaps Ricoh's pockets aren't that deep, trying to make up for losses elsewhere. Anyone know about the <em>financials</em> of RICOH, the company..? </p>

[andrewg_ny]

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>Here's the <strong>Deal</strong></em> (or part of it)... <strong>Pentax Q</strong> seems to have turned into a <em>flop of sorts</em>. Huge discounting going on overseas. Soon here..? Perhaps Ricoh's pockets aren't that deep, trying to make up for losses elsewhere. Anyone know about the <em>financials</em> of RICOH, the company..? "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know that I would attribute discounting at this point as indication of <em><strong>flopping</strong></em>. They're probably just cutting prices on it as sales from less budget-conscious early adopters slow, and this was probably in the plan all along. This isn't so different from when the K-5 was introduced at ~$1600, right? I'm sure Pentax Q had large margins at its initial price level and may actually be more viable at reduced prices.</p>

<p>Not to say that Q is necessarily a runaway success either -- but ultimately success is in the eye of the beholder. If Pentax/Ricoh makes money on the Q system, then they may be satisfied even if many photographers are not. Honestly I find certain aspects of the Q attractive, but initial price wasn't one of them. If they'd given it a sensor like Nikon 1 I'd guess it might have found more takers, and I might have been one of them -- I expect that Pentax could have done this at a similar price level with probably only slightly larger body & lenses -- if the sensor already existed. Even a 1/1.8" sensor would have helped their cause quite a bit.</p>

<p>Anyway, I thought this thread was all about <em>negative</em> news about <em>rising</em> prices! The Q is being <em>discounted</em>...<strong>yay</strong>!</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Ned Bunnell, president of Pentax USA <a href="http://nedbunnell.posterous.com/lens-prices-and-our-channel-strategy-in-the-u">has weighed in on the situation</a> with a post in his blog. In short: Prices haven't been raised, Pentax USA is simply forcing online retailers to stick to the MSRP so brick & mortar stores can have a chance to make a profit from selling Pentax gear. When Pentax show B&M stores it's possible, they'll start carrying Pentax again. This is part of Pentax's plan to return to stores, which they have been working on for a couple of years at least.</p>

<p>Good news: Lens rebates will return in the near future.</p>

<p>Thing about rebates...I purchased lenses with rebates in the past...but they only worked when purchased with a body, and it brought the prices further down from <em>Good</em> to <em>Great</em>. Now the rebates will bring prices down to <em>still more expensive than before the price increase</em>. I just don't see Pentax offering a $700 rebate for the DA* 16-50mm, for example. They will also have to offer lens rebates independently of camera purchases. I'm sure Andrew remembers if they've done this in the past or not.</p>

<p>In any case, it's nice that Ned wrote this post, but he should've published it before the price increase, not after.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

I think Pentax has often had rebates for individual lenses in the past but you're right -- they've never had anything that

would make the price anywhere near what the old street prices were. I seem to remember rebates like $50-150 in the

past - which were nice when applied to the old street price level.

[pwithem]

<p>I read Ned's response that was linked to above, but I'm just not feeling the love. First, distinguishing that the price increase is not a price increase, but a policing of the MSRP value is a diversionary point. It's like saying slavery didn't cause the (American) civil war. The existing consumer base has built their purchasing/upgrading habits and expectations around a pricing scheme that has been fairly stable over the past several years. Whether you want to call it policing or providing a direct path to your bottom line (i.e., "price increase") is beside the point - the fact is that Pentax made a decision that increased the pricing ecosystem of their products, in order to make more money. The dramatic price change is like dropping a meteor on prehistoric Earth; a portion of the existing dinosaur consumer base will die out and - if Pentax remains - a new customer base will evolve. It's purely a business call, which they're entitled to do, but I don't buy the "we never meant to hurt you" tone. The justification that it will "benefit the brand and many of you" is a pointless waste of words, because we can't see their books and have no way to judge for ourselves. <br>

I see this as them trying to position themselves to become more like Nikon and Canon. Maybe there are bigger ambitions like digital FF in the works, but it's not how I'd prefer to get there. What originally attracted me to Pentax was fantastic value, practical/ergonomic features (SR, compactness of size), and access to high quality. Cameras like the DS, K10D, K-x, and K-5, along with FA50, and Limited lenses all lived up to that. You could inject relatively affordable sums of money into the Pentax system and have excellent performance in your targeted area of interest. Whereas Canon and Nikon, you had to inject a lot more money to do the same, or you just ended up with less. With camera misfires (my opinion) like the K01 and the Q (which I consider a viral mutation on the noble concept of compactness), the recent price change maneuver feels more like another example of how increasingly out of touch the Pentax business minds have become. </p>

[wolf_weber]

<p>To follow up on my previous comment on the lens pricing issue (if not <em>mystery</em>)... Ricoh, the larger Co., has lost money over the last 12 months. Whether this has to do with their core business or Pentax not being profitable enough or not at all, we may not be able to learn... Meanwhile Pentax prices are starting to show <em>weakness</em> here and there. <strong>Market forces</strong>... Competition never sleeps. Currently, amongst Japanese camera makers, it's getting <em>ferocious</em>.</p>