D FA 100mm 2.8 Macro WR $649.95 free S/H In Stock...got one.JC -- ˜˜˜ See what you are looking at ˜˜˜

The reality is US prices have been based uponunreality. From the beginning US consumers have been paying approximately 50% for the same product as consumers in the rest of the world. Why do you think so many choose to buy from the US?My DA*16-50 cost me $1495 AUD three years ago. Currently one Australian dollar is worth $1.03 USGuess what? The DA*16-50 is still retailing at $1495 here in Ozhttp://www.teds.com.au/pentax-da-16-50mm-f2-8-sdmWith the US dollar tanking like it is get ready for even more increases.Maybe prices in the rest of the world will actually fall once we all stop subsidising the US market. Then maybe we'll start seeing US consumers buying from OS though I expect the US dollar will soon hardly be worth the paper it's printed on after Helicopter Ben instigates QE3!

Jim in Hudsonwrote: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.Your view of the legality of minimum pricing is common but incorrect. Pentax can set minimum prices as long as it's not done via conspiracy or contract. Pentax has the right, in the US, to refuse to sell products to retailers who won't abide by a minimum price schedule. You may want to take a look at:http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/485/717/

pundit - What is your opinion of the price of third party lenses in the US?

jessecadwrote:D FA 100mm 2.8 Macro WR $649.95 free S/H In Stock...got one.Thanks. There went my easy decision, but it sounds like I better get one or the other while the getting is good.

marike6wrote: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.I agree with you. I own aTokina 50-135mm F/2.8 AT-X, (bought new for $599), which is optically identical to the Pentax 50-150 f2.8 and I have also rented a Nikon 70-200 f2.8VR for use with my D7000 and the Nikkor is definitely in another league as a superb professional quality lens, while the Tokina is a very much a good consumer grade lens. My personal opinion is that the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR is the finest lenses made in this focal length range and is worth the steep price.Here is a shot I took with the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 at f2.8, 2800 ISO, 1/125 sec, D7000 JPEG without any post processing.See EXIF here:http://www.flickr.com/photos/jon-pb/5282151192/meta/I also own a Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X lens (bought used, like new, for $300), which is my primary lens for my Nikon D7000 and although it is very good, it is not as good at f2.8 as the Nikon 17-55 f2.8, which again is pro quality lens. IMO, the best of the Pentax/Tokina lenses are very good consumer grade lenses, but not the superb pro quality that is found in the superb, (and quite expensive) professional lenses from Nikon.Jon

Like what you did thereExplain why the Tokina is built as a consumer zoom then tie the pentax version to it by putting tokina/pentax.The reality is though the Tokina and Pentax share optical solutions the lens are totaly different from full time MF of the Penttax through to materials such as aperture coupler etc.So any statement you wish to make on the tokina variants cannot be extended cart blanch to the Pentax built lens.What you done is explain why the Tokina versions are so much cheaper than the Pentax versions.

The price increases really only seem to have been in the US market, because everyone else was already paying a decent amount for locally bought lenses.I think that was part of the problem, as people would skip their local Pentax sales point and just import from the US.While the price increase is ludicrous, comparing the tokina price and pentax price while fair in someways, is also unfair to Pentax. After all I'm 100% certain that all lenses could be sold alot cheaper and that canon and nikon make a lot of money on their much more overpriced lenses.It doesn't defend Pentax USA, whoce pricing was clearly aimed at gaining customers.

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 24-70 isn't a very useful zoom range on APS, IMO, so who cares if it works well on the FX Nikon bodies?I would never buy the 24-70 to use on the Nikon DX bodies where a wide zoom was needed, and certainly could not use it on a DX body to get anywhere near the same FOV range, so the double duty idea for this lens is more than a bit of a stretch. In fact it is a silly example.Nikon does not have a lot of pro level DX zooms, but in this range they offer the 17-55 f2.8 if you want to compare a similar lens:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html$1419 - No WR SRP=$1539.95Some years ago, when the first round of Pentax price increases came around, I knew that Pentax would have a hard time with the customer base on pricing, and posted here saying so. You see, I knew that many had purchased Pentax or stayed with Pentax because the product was cheaper.Pentax offered an incredible value for the price at the old pricing, and as long as the product was cheap, people would put up with not having some of the benefits or performance of the market leaders (although in some areas like IS, WR and construction, Pentax still gives you more than the competition for the same money).Yes, many (most?) Pentax customers are cheapskates, and once you play the bottom feeder pricing game, it is very hard to go back.Ray

awaldramwrote:Like what you did thereExplain why the Tokina is built as a consumer zoom then tie the pentax version to it by putting tokina/pentax.I did not say the Tokina was built as a consumer lens (ie. cheaply, which it is not). but rather their optical performance was that of a consumer lens and not quite up to pro quality levels primarily due to softness at f2.8. I feel the reasonable prices of Tokina lenses reflects their consumer lens designation. Doubling the price of these lenses does not suddenly make them pro quality, even if they have the Pentax logo on them.The reality is though the Tokina and Pentax share optical solutions the lens are totaly different from full time MF of the Pentax through to materials such as aperture coupler etc.You gloss over the fact that the "optical solutions" as you put it, are shared by Tokina and Pentax, but this is just the point. The Pentax 16-50 f2.8 and 50-135 f2.8 are opticallyidenticaldown to the lens groupings, number of aperture blades and even filter size.So any statement you wish to make on the tokina variants cannot be extended cart blanch to the Pentax built lens.Optically the perform identically.They are both made by Tokina, and only the mounts and some of the mechanical design differs between the Tokina and Pentax lenses. Check out the reviews and technical specs for yourself, if you don't believe me.What you done is explain why the Tokina versions are so much cheaper than the Pentax versions.You have turned the argument on it's head. The Tokina lenses are keenly priced, no doubt, but the real question I pose to you is why do you think the Pentax versions of the optically identical 16-50 f2.8 and 50-135 f2.8 are more than double the price of the similar Tokinas and how do you justify that price difference?I like my Tokina lenses very much and have no issue with the build quality of the Tokina lenses, either, (other than mine are screw drive instead of HSM), but I have no allusions that they are pro quality lenses. When I am called upon to do a wedding, I rent theprofessionalNikkor lenses to get the job done.Jon

However, not WR options. -- Bob (formerly bobmax)

glangloiswrote:Jim in Hudsonwrote: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.Your view of the legality of minimum pricing is common but incorrect. Pentax can set minimum prices as long as it's not done via conspiracy or contract. Pentax has the right, in the US, to refuse to sell products to retailers who won't abide by a minimum price schedule. You may want to take a look at:http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/485/717/I believe my view is correct and, in fact, since I manage the distribution sales for our business I need to know what the law is. Here is an excerpt from the link you provided:"Held: A vertical restraint of trade is not per se illegal under § 1 of the Sherman Act unless it includes some agreement on price or price levels. Pp. 485 U. S. 723-736.(a) Ordinarily, whether particular concerted action violates § 1 is determined through case-by-case application of the rule of reason. Per se rules are appropriate only for conduct that is manifestly anticompetitive. Althoughvertical agreements on resale prices are illegal per se, extension of that treatment to other vertical restraints must be based on demonstrable economic effect, rather than upon formalistic line drawing."So, yes, vertical agreements on resale prices are per se illegal (IOW, by definition).

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.The price increase was somewhat predictable for two reasons:1) Amazon has maintained the higher price for both lenses.2) Amazon just offered a rebate of $75 for the lenses; so, I anticipated there would be a "price adjustment" by sites that listed the lens below that of Amazon.My suggestion is: Hold tight. It is unlikely the prices will rise from here. I suspect you will see the prices eventually come back down. Over the last several months, the prices have been yo-yo(ing). As Pentax continues to lose market share (and they will unless their new releases are home-runs), they won't be able to charge a premium for the equipment. Prices will come down.Pentax makes good equipment and used to charge a fair price, but I am going to hold off giving them any more of my hard earned $ for 6-9 months until the market is clearer.I do feel your pain. I, too, was disappointed in the price increases, but I am hoping for new Pentax lenses with the optical quality of the 16-50/50-135, but with a new SDM motor that is more reliable.

jonikonwrote:I did not say the Tokina was built as a consumer lens (ie. cheaply, which it is not). but rather their optical performance was that of a consumer lens and not quite up to pro quality levels primarily due to softness at f2.8.Tokina must price their lenses to compete as a third party manufacturer. That is, they compete with Sigma and Tamron.You gloss over the fact that the "optical solutions" as you put it, are shared by Tokina and Pentax, but this is just the point. The Pentax 16-50 f2.8 and 50-135 f2.8 are opticallyidenticaldown to the lens groupings, number of aperture blades and even filter size.Actually, Pentax manufactures the optics for Tokina, then Tokina provides their own bodies.Joe

The problem here is while you are correct that the Pentax lens is probably overpriced, do you also not thin k most lenses are priced this way? If anything lenses made by Nikon and Canon are likely cheaper to produce yet cost as much.If Pentax had not done a deal with Tokina you wouldn't be having this argument. Also Tokina probably are not as well known as Sigma and Tamron and thus have to compete with them also.jonikonwrote:You have turned the argument on it's head. The Tokina lenses are keenly priced, no doubt, but the real question I pose to you is why do you think the Pentax versions of the optically identical 16-50 f2.8 and 50-135 f2.8 are more than double the price of the similar Tokinas and how do you justify that price difference?I like my Tokina lenses very much and have no issue with the build quality of the Tokina lenses, either, (other than mine are screw drive instead of HSM), but I have no allusions that they are pro quality lenses. When I am called upon to do a wedding, I rent theprofessionalNikkor lenses to get the job done.Jon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TokinaTokina, become a partner of Pentax, division of Hoya Corporation and jointly developed some lenses. These will be available under thePentax and Schneider Kreuznach D-Xenon and D-Xenogon brands in Pentax K mount and under the Tokina brand for all other lens mounts. However, the research center, design and engineering teams of these two companies are completely independent.The co-developed lenses share main optical designs but have different barrel structures and coatings. They also have some other different features. For example, the Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm II comes with built-in silent focusing motor, while the Pentax version has screwdrive autofocus. Another example is that Tokina AT-X Pro 16-50mm and 50-135mm have only screw-drive autofocus and no weather-sealing, but Pentax version have both features.Something from wikipedia.

Same optical design makes no odds when the lens performance is so closely related to the bodymount design.The Tokina 16-50 is known to perform poorly on the Nikon mount but is like a different lens in Canon to quote from lens tipFirstly the 16 mm and f/2.8 combination result underwent a radical change – on the Nikon the image quality washorrible, on the Canon it isexcellent.he version in a Canon mount was launched much later than the version in a Nikon mount, it seems Tokina, aware of the Nikon version shortcomings and its bad reviews, decided to improve its lens a bit more and with the right result.http://www.lenstip.com/248.11-Lens_review-Tokina_AT-X_165_PRO_DX_AF_16-50_mm_f_2.8__Summary.htmlSo you see why you should never judge a lens by one sample on one body, and definitely never across different mounts never mind manufacturers.!!!

You can check this:http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-Series-16-50mm-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000NO5QV6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346653290&sr=8-1&keywords=pentax+16-50mm

At 686 g the 50-135 is less than half the weight of the Nikon and is very comfortable to use without a tripod collar.

ememwrote:... you completely ignored the OP's reference to the fact that the Pentax lens is a rebadged TokinaThe reference is to an incorrect statement. IIRC, Tokina and Pentax did team up on the design of that lens, but the Tokina doesn't get SMC coatings, for example.One could just as correctly say that the Tokina is a rebadged Pentax lens and probably be closer to correct.