I think the except you chose made my point, Jim:Price maintenance that is embodied in one or moreagreementsis still illegal.Anti-competitive behaviorthat includes retail price maintenance is still illegal.But minimum pricing declared unilaterally by the manufacturer (in this case) that is not anti-competitive and is not carried out by agreement is still generally legal.There's more at Monsanto v. Spray-Rite but the decision I linked to is easier (for me) to learn from.All the best,GeoffreyJim in Hudsonwrote: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).

I just took a look at the D FA 100mm 2.8 Macro WR at B&H...price is now $846.JC -- ˜˜˜ See what you are looking at ˜˜˜

This lens is not SDM -- ˜˜˜ See what you are looking at ˜˜˜

I bought the SMCP-DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 ED last month for $899 today i look and they are $1521. So what justifies a jump of $621?

BarcaFanwrote:I bought the SMCP-DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 ED last month for $899 today i look and they are $1521. So what justifies a jump of $621?My point exactly. Some in this thread tried to compare the 50-135 price to the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR, but to me, while the focal lengths are the same, one lenses is an APS-C lens. As such, it cannot be compared to the 70-200 which is an investment that is guaranteed to work on all future bodies. If Pentax releases a FF DSLR, K-3, the 50-135 will be useless for the new FF Pentax.I could understand a price increase of $100-150. But to almost double the price of a lens overnight is a slap in the face to all Pentax users. And after having spent around $2000 USD in the past month for a K-30 and 5 lenses, I really kind of resent the suggestion that customers like me who complain about such dramatic price increases by threatening to jump to Nikon are killing the Pentax brand. So I'm supposed to suposed to blindly accept any outrageous pricing decisions? Sorry, but we all work hard, and in these tough financial times it is just foolish to accept price gauging because of some abstract, sentimental notion of loyalty. Pentax wants to f customers, they should be prepared for the consequences. It doesn't mean I don't love their gear (I bought into it didn't I?). It means that if they are not going to offer competitive prices, people are going to flee. There is a lot of great gear out these days, and companies that respect their customers will ultimately win out. I thought Pentax was such a company, but this latest move is showing that perhaps they don't care about us.

marike6wrote:BarcaFanwrote:I bought the SMCP-DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 ED last month for $899 today i look and they are $1521. So what justifies a jump of $621?My point exactly. Some in this thread tried to compare the 50-135 price to the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR, but to me, while the focal lengths are the same, one lenses is an APS-C lens. As such, it cannot be compared to the 70-200 which is an investment that is guaranteed to work on all future bodies. If Pentax releases a FF DSLR, K-3, the 50-135 will be useless for the new FF Pentax.I could understand a price increase of $100-150. But to almost double the price of a lens overnight is a slap in the face to all Pentax users. And after having spent around $2000 USD in the past month for a K-30 and 5 lenses, I really kind of resent the suggestion that customers like me who complain about such dramatic price increases by threatening to jump to Nikon are killing the Pentax brand. So I'm supposed to suposed to blindly accept any outrageous pricing decisions? Sorry, but we all work hard, and in these tough financial times it is just foolish to accept price gauging because of some abstract, sentimental notion of loyalty. Pentax wants to f customers, they should be prepared for the consequences. It doesn't mean I don't love their gear (I bought into it didn't I?). It means that if they are not going to offer competitive prices, people are going to flee. There is a lot of great gear out these days, and companies that respect their customers will ultimately win out. I thought Pentax was such a company, but this latest move is showing that perhaps they don't care about us.Please explain to us how the online price from the three largest retailers spans $1300 to $1525 on the 50-135 lens? Sure doesn't seem like Pentax is "forcing" retailers to charge the MSRP. Instead, it could be that retailers are taking advantage of a possible shortage.

Please explain to us how the online price from the three largest retailers spans $1300 to $1525 on the 50-135 lens? Sure doesn't seem like Pentax is "forcing" retailers to charge the MSRP. Instead, it could be that retailers are taking advantage of a possible shortage.That may be true, i don't know if it is Pentax or the retailers. In the past few months i have bought a K-5 and a few Pentax lenses in what i though was a fair price. Now not just the 50-135 but others have gone up also. I can't control what Pentax and retailers do but i can control on what i buy and be it fair pricing or not to me a lens i bought 4 weeks ago for $899 is not worth $1521 now. So all i can do is wait for the prices to drop or go with other manufacturers. I guess we will all have a choice to make, as long as you are happy with the choice you make then all is well.

All I know is that I REALLY WANT the DA* 55mm F1.4, and am just waiting to see what comes out of Photokina (and to pay off one more bill) to make that next lens purchase. A good F1.4 is one of only two more lens purchases I feel I need to make to have a fairly complete kit (the other being a decent wide-angle).But if Pentax keeps up with this UPP garbage, I'll forego the WR and get the Sigma 50mm F1.4, which is $300 less and gets RAVE reviews. It also uses a much larger filter size (the same as the Pentax 16-50 and 300, 77mm), vs. a 58mm for the DA* 55. As I already have the filters I need at that size, that's no problem for me.Or, for just a hundred bucks or so more than the DA* 55, I could get the Sigma 85mm F1.4 and have the equivalent of 127mm at F1.4, something that may come in very handy for me, at times... Haven't quite decided yet, assuming Pentax keeps its DA* 55 at full MSRP (I could even go the other way and get the Sigma 30mm F1.4 -- if money were no object, I'd have all three -- or the Pentax lens, and the other two from Sigma).Money is, though. Were it not for zero-interest financing, I couldn't buy what I've bought so far. And I have to be careful how much I buy at any one time or I'll end up not paying it off before the zero-interest period ends. Jeff -- A word is worth 1/1000th of a picture... Maybe that's why I use so many words!

marike6wrote:BarcaFanwrote:I bought the SMCP-DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 ED last month for $899 today i look and they are $1521. So what justifies a jump of $621?My point exactly. Some in this thread tried to compare the 50-135 price to the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR, but to me, while the focal lengths are the same, one lenses is an APS-C lens. As such, it cannot be compared to the 70-200 which is an investment that is guaranteed to work on all future bodies. If Pentax releases a FF DSLR, K-3, the 50-135 will be useless for the new FF Pentax.Did you not know that most of the Pentax lens lineup is APS-C and not compatible with a 35mm sized sensor when you bought your Pentax equipment?FYI, the 70-200 Nikon you keep referring to has a SRP of $2399.95,more than you paid for a brand new Pentax body and 5 lenses.Add the 24-70 to that and you are looking at almost $4300 SRP for just TWO lenses.And you think the Pentax pricing isn't justified?I could understand a price increase of $100-150. But to almost double the price of a lens overnight is a slap in the face to all Pentax users. And after having spent around $2000 USD in the past month for a K-30 and 5 lenses, I really kind of resent the suggestion that customers like me who complain about such dramatic price increases by threatening to jump to Nikon are killing the Pentax brand.So, it seems to me that you mainly chose Pentax because of the price. The Pentax pricing policy changes are also not new news and have been discussed here since at least April.I think that you are making my earlier point that many Pentax customers bought into the system mainly due to price and do not think the system is worth paying similar prices as the competition.At the end of the day, the market will set the price at which the Pentax lenses are sold. If the price increases kill sales, expect to see rebates and discounts until the price settles near the point that potential customers think is fair value.Ray

marike6wrote:BarcaFanwrote:I bought the SMCP-DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 ED last month for $899 today i look and they are $1521. So what justifies a jump of $621?My point exactly. Some in this thread tried to compare the 50-135 price to the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR, but to me, while the focal lengths are the same, one lenses is an APS-C lens. As such, it cannot be compared to the 70-200 which is an investment that is guaranteed to work on all future bodies. If Pentax releases a FF DSLR, K-3, the 50-135 will be useless for the new FF Pentax.On what basis do you makle this claimBoth Nikon and canon have history of dumping users with mount changes Pentax does not.Though the 50-135 may have reduced functionality history indicates it will always function on any future Pentax camera The same cannot be said for any Nikon lens.Rather you should ask how can Nikon Charge $800 for having Nikon on the lens when both Tamron and Sigma produce lens that compete in the same focal lengths.ANd maybe Nikon needs to tighten their quality too if they want to charge those pricesAs Photozone state"In the MTF lab the first sample lens delivered good to very good resolution figures but suffered from a rather pronouncedcentering defect - this is actually not overly unusual for Nikon VR lenses"I could understand a price increase of $100-150. But to almost double the price of a lens overnight is a slap in the face to all Pentax users. And after having spent around $2000 USD in the past month for a K-30 and 5 lenses, I really kind of resent the suggestion that customers like me who complain about such dramatic price increases by threatening to jump to Nikon are killing the Pentax brand. So I'm supposed to suposed to blindly accept any outrageous pricing decisions? Sorry, but we all work hard, and in these tough financial times it is just foolish to accept price gauging because of some abstract, sentimental notion of loyalty.So I assume you will no longer be buying Nikon glass having been royally gouged for years ??The whole idea that Pentax can produce lens cheaper than Nikon just for the American market is preposterous and as they say "only in America".Pentax wants to f customers, they should be prepared for the consequences. It doesn't mean I don't love their gear (I bought into it didn't I?). It means that if they are not going to offer competitive prices, people are going to flee. There is a lot of great gear out these days, and companies that respect their customers will ultimately win out. I thought Pentax was such a company, but this latest move is showing that perhaps they don't care about us.I'm sorry you resent it but Pentax have been very clear on their intent to straighten up US pricing , I didn't notice complaints as prices caved from the last adjustment and suspect to listen to eery silence when it happens this time

jessecadwrote:This lens is not SDMI'm pretty sure the Pentax SMC DA* Series 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL IF SDM and Pentax SMC DA* Series 50-135mm f/2.8 ED IF SDM are SDM lenses. Call it a hunch.Here is a quote from the product description: "SDM system creates smoother, quieter auto focus"Now do you see what you're looking at?

This shows what they have left in stock. I am sure they will quote a price for anything else, but I am guessing a higher price. I hate to give away my secret, but the store has been good to me.http://www.cccamera.com/products.html?catalog[search][text]=pentax+lenses&catalog[sort][on]=relevance&catalog[offset]=0Tim -- http://flickr.com/photos/tim_a/

Tom_Brownwrote:jessecadwrote:This lens is not SDMI'm pretty sure the Pentax SMC DA* Series 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL IF SDM and Pentax SMC DA* Series 50-135mm f/2.8 ED IF SDM are SDM lenses. Call it a hunch.The Tokina versions are not SDM.Tokina.

I just checked the price of that DA*55 F1.4 at Amazon, just out of curiosity. It's NOT at full MSRP, BUT Pentax has INCREASED the MSRP on the lens by MORE THAN $150 from just a few weeks ago to $959 (I believe the MSRP was $799, if memory serves me correctly).The lens is offered at $725, which is still a bit below the prior MSRP (and you could get it for $649 at B&H last time I checked -- haven't checked lately). The complaints the OP made about the price increases on the 16-50 and the 50-135, well, I looked at them and they still have the same MSRP they had before, I think, so maybe B&H just had to start honoring Pentax's UPP (perhaps they were selling old inventory before, and when they bought more they had to honor it). But the DA* 55, that's an OBVIOUS increase on MSRP, and the FIRST I've seen on one of the DA* lenses since I started looking into buying a Pentax DSLR in July of last year.A Sigma F1.4 lens keeps looking better and better -- especially since I'm still pretty cautious about shooting in "weather" anyway, and have some rain sleeves I can use when and if I do. Jeff -- A word is worth 1/1000th of a picture... Maybe that's why I use so many words!

No offense, Tim, but I really didn't see ANY deals there, except for maybe the 50-135. The prices aren't bad for a B&M store, but they aren't great, either. JeffTim A2wrote:This shows what they have left in stock. I am sure they will quote a price for anything else, but I am guessing a higher price. I hate to give away my secret, but the store has been good to me.http://www.cccamera.com/products.html?catalog[search][text]=pentax+lenses&catalog[sort][on]=relevance&catalog[offset]=0Tim -- http://flickr.com/photos/tim_a/

Jim in Hudsonwrote:Please explain to us how the online price from the three largest retailers spans $1300 to $1525 on the 50-135 lens? Sure doesn't seem like Pentax is "forcing" retailers to charge the MSRP. Instead, it could be that retailers are taking advantage of a possible shortage.It's not the retailers who are making the price changes, it is from Pentax. I wrote to Pentax USA and here's what they replied:"Dear Markus,Thank you for contacting PENTAX.PENTAX has actually recently adopted a more uniform pricing policy on lenses. I would refer you to PENTAX RICOH IMAGING AMERICAS CORPORATION's Presidient Ned Bunnell’s Blog post at link below. A link to the post can also be found on our Facebook page athttp://www.facebook.com/pentaxhttp://nedbunnell.posterous.com/lens-prices-and-our-channel-strategy-in-the-u"So the new pricing is an attempt to "adopt a more uniform pricing policy" which is essentially a spin on "like it or lump it, this is how it's going to be".Sorry, but now that I see the 100 2.8 Macro that I was planning to purchase next is close to $900, I don't feel I have any choice but to jump ship out of principal. As consumers, and loyal Pentax customer I refuse to blindly except such outrageous pricing policy when competition is so fierce and other vendors offer more for less. It's as simple as that. I bought into the Pentax system (a K-30 and 5 lenses) with a plan to acquire some better glass, and for example to complete a set of DA Limited Primes (15 f4, 40 2.8, 70 2.4). Now the 70 2.4 is $700!!! The 100 2.8 Macro is $900, up from $600. Uniform pricing indeed. More like the Pentax customers getting uniformly shafted.I feel bad that Pentax/Ricoh are not doing that well as a company, but it's not my responsibility to help them balance their books by paying up to 40% more for lenses.

awaldramwrote: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.You are simply ignoring lower taxes and mass consumer market in the US. Everything is cheaper in the US, including Canon, Nikon, and Sony compared to UK prices for the same products. Cellphones and IPads are cheaper too in the US. Google Nexus 7 is cheaper in the US.So your logic that the Pentax US prices must match the UK ones is outright stupid. That doesn't explain crap why the prices are fluctuating randomly.

marike6wrote:Jim in Hudsonwrote:Please explain to us how the online price from the three largest retailers spans $1300 to $1525 on the 50-135 lens? Sure doesn't seem like Pentax is "forcing" retailers to charge the MSRP. Instead, it could be that retailers are taking advantage of a possible shortage.It's not the retailers who are making the price changes, it is from Pentax. I wrote to Pentax USA and here's what they replied:"Dear Markus,Thank you for contacting PENTAX.PENTAX has actually recently adopted a more uniform pricing policy on lenses. I would refer you to PENTAX RICOH IMAGING AMERICAS CORPORATION's Presidient Ned Bunnell’s Blog post at link below. A link to the post can also be found on our Facebook page athttp://www.facebook.com/pentaxhttp://nedbunnell.posterous.com/lens-prices-and-our-channel-strategy-in-the-u"So the new pricing is an attempt to "adopt a more uniform pricing policy" which is essentially a spin on "like it or lump it, this is how it's going to be".Sorry, but now that I see the 100 2.8 Macro that I was planning to purchase next is close to $900, I don't feel I have any choice but to jump ship out of principal. As consumers, and loyal Pentax customer I refuse to blindly except such outrageous pricing policy when competition is so fierce and other vendors offer more for less. It's as simple as that. I bought into the Pentax system (a K-30 and 5 lenses) with a plan to acquire some better glass, and for example to complete a set of DA Limited Primes (15 f4, 40 2.8, 70 2.4). Now the 70 2.4 is $700!!! The 100 2.8 Macro is $900, up from $600. Uniform pricing indeed. More like the Pentax customers getting uniformly shafted.I feel bad that Pentax/Ricoh are not doing that well as a company, but it's not my responsibility to help them balance their books by paying up to 40% more for lenses.OK, I think I now understand what Pentax is doing. They can't legally enforce prices on product they have already sold to distributors but they can tell online retailers that they must sell at certain levels (probably within some percentage of MSRP) if they wish to remain authorized distributors with access to product. Frankly, this action may have been the carrot they offered to B&M retailers to get them to either start carrying Pentax or carrying it in a more meaningful way (such as more than just camera kits). Whether this ultimately helps or hurts Pentax is anyone's guess though I'm sure they feel it will help.

Zvonimir Tosicwrote: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.Pentax is not inferior because it is small, it is inferior because it chooses to be.But Pentax being inferior did not stop me from buying the *istD, K200D and a host of lenses.The main reason for that decision (2004) was that Pentax lenses were good and much cheaper than Nikon and Canon.That incentive is now gone.