Prices of two of the better SDM lenses have been almost doubled.DA 50-135 Old price was $899 new price (are you seated) $1525.95.http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/485184-USA/Pentax_21660_SMCP_DA_50_135mm_f_2_8_ED.htmlDA 16-50 Old price was around $799. New Price $1424.95http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/485180-USA/Pentax_21650_SMCP_DA_16_50mm_f_2_8_ED.htmlThis is an outrage. I recently purchased a K-30, and several lenses. I was saving up for the 50-135, but I would never in a million years pay almost double the price. It's a good lens, but it doesn't even have a tripod collar. I don't know if Pentax thinks this is equivalent to a Nikon 70-200 2.8, but it is not. It is essentially a rebranded Tokina 50-135 (keep in mind the Tokina has a tripod collar). The previous price, $899 seems about right for such a lens. $1524, no way.If any of the forum members find this new pricing to be as outrageous as I do please write to Pentax and let them know that we are not going to stand for it. I'm a huge fan of Pentax gear, but have absolutely no qualms about moving to Nikon if this becomes a trend (or if they don't correct this absurd price gauging for these two lenses).Pentax APS-C as a system just became a whole lot less attractive to me. I feel badly that Ricoh / Pentax aren't doing as well as some of the other brands, but as a loyal user, I refuse to be soaked. Pentax hasn't updated their lenses in years, and the few lenses that are SDM, they are going to double the prices of. It's absolutely insane and frankly, bad business when competition is so high in the DSLR world.Sorry for the rant, but I am not at all happy about this development.

marike6wrote:Prices of two of the better SDM lenses have been almost doubled.DA 50-135 Old price was $899 new price (are you seated) $1525.95.http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/485184-USA/Pentax_21660_SMCP_DA_50_135mm_f_2_8_ED.htmlDA 16-50 Old price was around $799. New Price $1424.95http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/485180-USA/Pentax_21650_SMCP_DA_16_50mm_f_2_8_ED.htmlThis is an outrage. I recently purchased a K-30, and several lenses. I was saving up for the 50-135, but I would never in a million years pay almost double the price. It's a good lens, but it doesn't even have a tripod collar. I don't know if Pentax thinks this is equivalent to a Nikon 70-200 2.8, but it is not.So you believe that Nikon's 70-200/2.8 now priced at B&H at $2,396.95 is justified, and Pentax' focal length equivalent should be $900 max?And you have no qualms about jumping to Nikon because the price of their lens is 60% (roughly $800) higher even after considering (yours almost double) $1525 as a RRP?Can extra $800 buy you a lens collar and an extra body?I admit that Pentax pricing could have been better orchestrated, price increase introduced thoughtfully and through some period of time (Never abruptly like Pentax USA does). I also think that the newest promo should be better thought out.What you indadvertedly say is that Pentax as a brand is, by default small and thus inferior, and they should stick up to that image of "great quality for minimum price", and to keep you happy they should be busy rolling out amazing gear at a bargain prices when compared to big name manufacturers — who are allowed to do anything simply because they can.And that is exactly how loyalist like you kill the brand.

... you completely ignored the OP's reference to the fact that the Pentax lens is a rebadged Tokina - and obviously Tokina are still making a profit at their retail price. No, there's a difference between paying for a premium lens and price-gouging by Pentax because they can. The Tokina 12-24 is another case in point - not available in Pentax mount but rebadged and sold for twice the price by Pentax.But we can always depend on Zvonimir to come out with six-guns blazing in defence of the idefensible.And I have the Nikon 70-200 2.8 AND the Pentax 50-135 2.8 - not in the same league. - Oh and just for the record, the SDM on my 50-135 has finally sh!t itself as I was fairly sure it would. No, they're definately not in the same league.Mike M. (emem) http://www.veritasmea.com

Increasing prices as fast is not the best for us consumer, but Pentax is not the only one.Canon and Nikon did the same thing (last year if i'm right).I'm not sure if that Nikon 70-200mm is worth that kind of $$$ over the Pentax , the Nikon had problems also with some dirt inside the lens coming from the metal inside... maybe now it's OK.

When I bought into Pentax last year, it was a GREAT system at decent prices. Now it's still a GREAT system, but the lens pricing does give one pause.Personally I'm thinking of selling my zooms, keeping my primes and a K-5 body and picking up a Canon 5DIII when the prices get better around the holidays.There is still to see what Photokina brings, though. If the Pentax FF body materializes, then I will have to rethink what I want to do. (So I'll probably be buying a 5DIII in few months!)

I am a diehard Pentax fan and love the ergonomics of Pentax DSLRs. I already have bought my DA Limited primes and Tamron and Sigma zooms. I recently bought my DA*50-135 because it is a fantastic lens midway between the high and low end prices now they are oscillating every day.However, I am very displeased with Pentax lens prices yo-yoing up and down. It makes buying a Pentax lens a gamble. For my future I may need one or two more zooms, but most likely they won't be a Pentax.Sorry, Ricoh-Pentax, you make it very difficult to figure out when is a good time to buy your lenses. Think, think, think, if the diehard fans end up buying third party lenses then what is the point of buying into a Pentax system?

The 16-50 and 50-135 are Pentax designs licensed to Tokina. The only Tokina design licensed to Pentax is the 12-24.

I must admit some amusement at theses rant threads our cousins across the water post.especially the 'me to' from folks not even affected by the price hikes.In Feb 2010 it was cheaper for UK pentaxians to get on a plane to the US to buy their lens than walk down the high street store !!Yet I don;t remember gnashing of teeth and wave of sympathy then.?Simply put Pentax US has run a pricing structure that made no sense now they appear to ve trying to balance the books but retailers and consumers are driving the prices back down again till Penatx US stamp their feet.If cynical you would notice bodies prices drop lens prices rise seem some wild sales tactic at play get bodies on the hand of the punter then give heavy discount on rrp lens.I'm sure in time the prices will drop.

leopoldwrote:Increasing prices as fast is not the best for us consumer, but Pentax is not the only one.i haven't followed the lens prices very closely. i think the 50-135 and 16-50 lagged behind the other lenses when they dropped following the April price increase. the other lenses dropped prices and then these two.now, they are listed, again, at near the April prices. i had only recently noticed the prices had gone up. i went to B&H to take a look because i read a post about rebates Pentax was offering. i didn't see the rebates reflected at B&H. the rebates are there now.

OK, some are actually defending the doubling of price. So how many here would pay $1500 for an APS-C normal zoom the DA 16-50 2.8?Before you answer, keep in mind that a FF tank of a lens like the Nikon 24-70 2.8 is only about $300 more than the 16-50. A lens like the Nikon will always work perfectly with all Nikon bodies, while the DA 16-50 2.8, if Pentax releases a FF K-5 replacement, will be useless.Also consider that a Canon 70-200 2.8 L non-IS is $1330 at B&H.Anyway, Pentax can do what they want but I don't believe price gauging loyal customers is the way to go. If they actually started upgrading more of their screw-driver lenses, they'd sell more lenses.Anyway, with the price of the optically superior Sigma 18-50 2.8 just over $600, I don't imagine Pentax will sell many DA 16-50.By the way, I've been shooting Pentax since K20D days and I don't appreciate being lectured about my loyalty because of don't want to have Pentax balance their books on my back.

Zvonimir Tosicwrote:So you believe that Nikon's 70-200/2.8 now priced at B&H at $2,396.95 is justified, and Pentax' focal length equivalent should be $900 max?I didn't say it should be $900, but it's not worth $1500. If you've ever owed a 70-200 2.8 VR, there is no comparison to the Pentax 50-135. The 70-200 is a FF, all metal tank of a lens with a tripod collar and VR.An APS-C only zoom is not comparable. The only equivalence with the 70-200 and 50-135 is focal length.And you have no qualms about jumping to Nikon because the price of their lens is 60% (roughly $800) higher even after considering (yours almost double) $1525 as a RRP?Can extra $800 buy you a lens collar and an extra body?Can it buy VR too?Sorry, but if you think loyalty means accepting outrageous non-competitive then we just have a difference of opinion. I have no intention of falling in line with such pricing policies, and I don't imagine I'll be alone in refusing to pay so much more for less than the competition offers.

marike6wrote:OK, some are actually defending the doubling of price. So how many here would pay $1500 for an APS-C normal zoom the DA 16-50 2.8?I have actually done it twice, I bought a second one after my first was stolen.By the way, I've been shooting Pentax since K20D days and I don't appreciate being lectured about my loyalty because of don't want to have Pentax balance their books on my back.They aren't balancing thier books on your back, they are just introducing US customers to the real world, where a worthless dollar makes imported goods more expensive, especially when the currencies of the supplying countries are higher and they need to charge more to cover their increased costs. -- Chris.A weather sealed ultra wide, is that too much to ask?http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/chrisideGMT +9.5Pentax SLR talk FAQ http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23161072

marike6wrote:OK, some are actually defending the doubling of price. So how many here would pay $1500 for an APS-C normal zoom the DA 16-50 2.8?Before you answer, keep in mind that a FF tank of a lens like the Nikon 24-70 2.8 is only about $300 more than the 16-50. A lens like the Nikon will always work perfectly with all Nikon bodies, while the DA 16-50 2.8, if Pentax releases a FF K-5 replacement, will be useless.The load on a lens for an aps-c sensor is greater than the equivalent FF so for a lens to resolve the same on APS-c it needs to be 1.5 times sharper than a FF lens.Providing of cause the sensor is able to out resolve the lens.Also consider that a Canon 70-200 2.8 L non-IS is $1330 at B&H.Anyway, Pentax can do what they want but I don't believe price gauging loyal customers is the way to go. If they actually started upgrading more of their screw-driver lenses, they'd sell more lenses.That is why we have consumer choice , Maybe consider moving to a brand that meets you gouging approval.Pentax US would soon get the message, Rants on this forum will be less effective.Anyway, with the price of the optically superior Sigma 18-50 2.8 just over $600, I don't imagine Pentax will sell many DA 16-50.Having owned both I think your statement is in error by some margin. And if you want 16mm the Sigma is a bit of a dead duck. at 18mm corners are soft chromatic distortion if poor no WR no Full time MF Distortions are complex and not fixableIn short the Sigma is exactly what it claims to be an economical consumer zoom starting at f2.8.By the way, I've been shooting Pentax since K20D days and I don't appreciate being lectured about my loyalty because of don't want to have Pentax balance their books on my back.Hope you don't mind me explaining the difference between a consumer f2.8 zoom and a pro f2.8 zoom then.I think your right on how many they will sell in the US. But I suppose with the US being Pentax's weakest market it wont effect global sales one jot.I suspect they'd rather sell 1 lens and make $300 profit than 2 and $30 loss.!!

My complain is not about price increases, but large pricing swings back and forth. It makes buying Pentax lenses a guessing game and gamble. I am not sure what is the real value of a lens. They could have increased it on April 1st, as they did, and kept it there. What is this constant price swing between $900 and $1600 for a lens up and down constantly.I am glad I bought most lenses I wanted, but this is completely ridiculous rollercoaster pricing.

marike6wrote:Prices of two of the better SDM lenses have been almost doubled.DA 50-135 Old price was $899 new price (are you seated) $1525.95.http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/485184-USA/Pentax_21660_SMCP_DA_50_135mm_f_2_8_ED.htmlDA 16-50 Old price was around $799. New Price $1424.95http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/485180-USA/Pentax_21650_SMCP_DA_16_50mm_f_2_8_ED.htmlThis is an outrage. I recently purchased a K-30, and several lenses. I was saving up for the 50-135, but I would never in a million years pay almost double the price. It's a good lens, but it doesn't even have a tripod collar. I don't know if Pentax thinks this is equivalent to a Nikon 70-200 2.8, but it is not. It is essentially a rebranded Tokina 50-135 (keep in mind the Tokina has a tripod collar). The previous price, $899 seems about right for such a lens. $1524, no way.If any of the forum members find this new pricing to be as outrageous as I do please write to Pentax and let them know that we are not going to stand for it. I'm a huge fan of Pentax gear, but have absolutely no qualms about moving to Nikon if this becomes a trend (or if they don't correct this absurd price gauging for these two lenses).Pentax APS-C as a system just became a whole lot less attractive to me. I feel badly that Ricoh / Pentax aren't doing as well as some of the other brands, but as a loyal user, I refuse to be soaked. Pentax hasn't updated their lenses in years, and the few lenses that are SDM, they are going to double the prices of. It's absolutely insane and frankly, bad business when competition is so high in the DSLR world.Sorry for the rant, but I am not at all happy about this development.Those who imply Pentax is the reason for large price increases or swings should provide some evidence that Pentax is behind this. It's entirely possible that Pentax is granting on again, off again large rebates to major resellers which could account for this but I've not seen anything to suggest that's what's happening. As a default, we should keep in mind that it's illegal in the USA (and many other countries) for a manufacturer to dictate resale prices of their products.

marike6wrote:I was saving up for the 50-135....It is essentially a rebranded Tokina 50-135 (keep in mind the Tokina has a tripod collar)No. All of the joint lenses were developed by Pentax, except for the 12-24, which Tokina did develop. That misunderstanding was laid to rest a long time ago.But I agree with you that the price increase is ridiculous. I suspect it will also be temporary. Perhaps Pentax anticipates increased demand when the new flagship DSLR is announced. The prices will in time come back down.Joe

ememwrote:... you completely ignored the OP's reference to the fact that the Pentax lens is a rebadged TokinaWrong.Joe

Well they just made my decision between the Pentax 100 mm macro ($849) and the Tamron 90 mm macro ($449) easy. Prices are at Adorama.Tim -- http://flickr.com/photos/tim_a/

Buy third party lenses. You'll have to make some compromises (no weather seals, slightly different focal length range), but I'm sure you'll be satisfied with the following combo:Tamron 70-200/2.8 - $770http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539403-REG/Tamron_AF001P_700_70_200mm_f_2_8_Di_LD.htmlTamron 17-50/2.8 - $500http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550721-REG/Tamron_AF016P_700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di_II.htmlWith 6 year warranty and no SDM I'd actually be less worried about the longevity of these Tamron lenses compared to their Pentax closest equivalents.Prog. -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/oren_b

Mr Jamwrote:Sorry, Ricoh-Pentax, you make it very difficult to figure out when is a good time to buy your lenses.If people buy third party lenses and refuse to co-operate with this insane pricing Pentax will be forced to bring down the prices.Think, think, think, if the diehard fans end up buying third party lenses then what is the point of buying into a Pentax system?Currently, it's the bodies. When it comes to DSLR's with in-body-IS Pentax is the only game in town. SLT is not for everyone (and this is coming from a Sony A77 owner), and the Olympus E-5 is an overpriced-underperforming DSLR for those who are stuck with FourThird lenses (which is a group I also fall into, but luckily I'm not heavily invested into FT to consider the E-5).Prog. -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/oren_b