Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:32:07 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<rKRvj.11837$XI.393@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>Perhaps because of the increasing popularity of entry-level DSLRs, Nikon
>have been recently introducing lenses of good optical quality at
>budget-level prices. The 55 - 200mm VR II lens is one example. These
>lenses don't have the same built-like-a-tank build quality as the
>"all-metal" Nikon lenses of old, but for amateur use are quite adequate,
>and have the advantage of being light and easy to carry.
>
>I'm pleased that Nikon offer me that choice.

Unfortunately, whether all such lenses deserve the name brand moniker is
at least somewhat questionable, since they may just be (re)branded
versions of third party lenses. I would personally feel ripped off if
I found the name brand lens I bought is really a Sigma, Tamron, Tokina,
or whatnot. (I'm not saying this allies to the particular lens you
mentioned -- don't know one way or the other -- just making a general
point about this dirty little secret.)

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

John Navas wrote:
[]
> Unfortunately, whether all such lenses deserve the name brand moniker
> is at least somewhat questionable, since they may just be (re)branded
> versions of third party lenses. I would personally feel ripped off if
> I found the name brand lens I bought is really a Sigma, Tamron,
> Tokina, or whatnot.
[]

I might agree with you, although if the choice is:

- 3rd party, take it or leave it, no performance guarantee, return to base
servicing for 1 year

- branded, quality checked to brand standard, performance guaranteed,
world-wide carry-in servicing, 5-year warranty.

at least you then see why there might be two different prices.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:48 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<kUZvj.12140$XI.4715@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>[]
>> Unfortunately, whether all such lenses deserve the name brand moniker
>> is at least somewhat questionable, since they may just be (re)branded
>> versions of third party lenses. I would personally feel ripped off if
>> I found the name brand lens I bought is really a Sigma, Tamron,
>> Tokina, or whatnot.
>[]
>
>I might agree with you, although if the choice is:
>
>- 3rd party, take it or leave it, no performance guarantee, return to base
>servicing for 1 year
>
>- branded, quality checked to brand standard, performance guaranteed,
>world-wide carry-in servicing, 5-year warranty.
>
>at least you then see why there might be two different prices.

In my experience, the latter is more theory than real world practice.
I've seen little or no real differentiation between the independent
brand and the name brand of the same lens.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

In article <ksq1s3tmuvaffppqc18gebqk64mbsdur3s DeleteThis @4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:

> I've seen little or no real differentiation between the independent
> brand and the name brand of the same lens.

which nikon or canon lens is made by sigma/tamron/tokina ?
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:37:10 -0800, nospam <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <230220082037107988%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <ksq1s3tmuvaffppqc18gebqk64mbsdur3s.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> I've seen little or no real differentiation between the independent
>> brand and the name brand of the same lens.
>
>which nikon or canon lens is made by sigma/tamron/tokina ?

You really don't have any idea?
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

In article <l422s3hirg8j82oiinp3gh2meiu2te0adj.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >> I've seen little or no real differentiation between the independent
> >> brand and the name brand of the same lens.
> >
> >which nikon or canon lens is made by sigma/tamron/tokina ?
>
> You really don't have any idea?

nope. clue me in. which ones?
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:36:33 -0800, nospam <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.invalid> wrote
in <230220082236330231%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <l422s3hirg8j82oiinp3gh2meiu2te0adj DeleteThis @4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >> I've seen little or no real differentiation between the independent
>> >> brand and the name brand of the same lens.
>> >
>> >which nikon or canon lens is made by sigma/tamron/tokina ?
>>
>> You really don't have any idea?
>
>nope. clue me in. which ones?

"Google is your friend:"
<http://www.google.com/search?q=%28canon-lens+OR+nikon-lens%29+%28made-by-sigma+OR+made-by-tokina+OR+made-by-tamron%29>

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

In article <eni3s3tb7iae68e19k7ishdru6o8941266 RemoveThis @4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:

> <http://www.google.com/search?q=%28canon-lens+OR+nikon-lens%29+%28made-by-sigm
> a+OR+made-by-tokina+OR+made-by-tamron%29>

that just produces a lot of anecdotal evidence and people speculating
because some lenses are similar. nikon does outsource some of the
budget lenses, but i have not seen any evidence that the exact same
lens is also marketed by someone else. it also contradicts what you
said a few months ago about not bothering with third party lenses.

you stated:

> I've seen little or no real differentiation between the independent
> brand and the name brand of the same lens.

to which lens(es) do you refer? specific examples please, not google
it.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> John Turco wrote:
> []
> > Hello, nospam:
> >
> > You're quite right...if Nikon's way provides no overall edge over the
> > Pentax approach, then let David continue wasting his pounds, if he so
> > desires. <g>
>
>
> John,
>
> As I've already shown, there is little price difference, but that isn't
> the important point. There is a very substantial advantage in having a
> stabilised image in the viewfinder, making composition and other aspects
> of the camera operation much easier when hand-holding long lenses. It's
> not a brand thing at all, simply a function of where you put the IS.

Hello, David:

Whoopie. :-J

> It's a very easy test to try for yourself in any camera shop. DSLR with
> 300mm IS/VR lens. Switch IS to off, try framing. Switch IS to on, and
> try again. If you can get IS lenses for Pentax, you can enjoy the same
> benefit.
>
> Cheers,
> David

Oh, so, I could then enjoy the best of both worlds, in terms of image
stabilization?

Thank you, kindly, for confirming Pentax's superiority in modern DSLR
ergonomics. <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

nospam wrote:
>
> In article <47BFC15C.CC5DCDC5 DeleteThis @concentric.net>, John Turco
> <jtur DeleteThis @concentric.net> wrote:
>
> > We're discussing "entry level" DSLR's, recall? I doubt that very many buyers
> > of either the D40 or K100D, would want to throw lots of cash, at even
> > "'budget' telephoto zooms."
>
> the lenses he listed are often bundled as a kit.
>
> > As one of the DSLR industry's "Big Two" (along with Canon), the company
> > obviously enjoys overcharging for its various products.
>
> people are free to choose whatever camera they want. the fact that
> nikon sells more than pentax is proof that they aren't overcharging.


Hello, nospam:

No, Nikon >does< overcharge, because there's a sucker born every minute,
as the old saying goes. <g>

Besides, market share isn't necessarily indicative of quality. After
all, as a faithful Apple user, haven't you often publicly lambasted
Microsoft's allegedly monopolistic practices?


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur DeleteThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

David J Taylor wrote:

<edited for brevity>

> John,
>
> I agree that there are lots of Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses which are
> outside my hobbyist budget, but I don't see this as "overcharging" when
> there are alternatives you can choose.
>
> Perhaps because of the increasing popularity of entry-level DSLRs, Nikon
> have been recently introducing lenses of good optical quality at
> budget-level prices. The 55 - 200mm VR II lens is one example. These
> lenses don't have the same built-like-a-tank build quality as the
> "all-metal" Nikon lenses of old, but for amateur use are quite adequate,
> and have the advantage of being light and easy to carry.
>
> I'm pleased that Nikon offer me that choice.
>
> Cheers,
> David


Hello, David:

Death to Nikon and Canon, alike, I say...Pentax is my puppy!
Just as with the lack of respect afforded Kodak's P&S cameras,
within <news:rec.photo.digital>, I consider it my duty to defend
Pentax's honor, in the DSLR arena.

It's a tough job, but, someone has to do it. <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.RemoveThis@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

John Navas wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:07:42 -0800, nospam <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote
> in <230220080107424573%nospam@nospam.invalid>:
>
> >In article <47BFC15C.CC5DCDC5.TakeThisOut@concentric.net>, John Turco
> ><jtur.TakeThisOut@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >> As one of the DSLR industry's "Big Two" (along with Canon), the company
> >> obviously enjoys overcharging for its various products.
> >
> >people are free to choose whatever camera they want. the fact that
> >nikon sells more than pentax is proof that they aren't overcharging.
>
> You're both right. It's a matter of _perceived_ value versus _real_
> value -- if consumers perceive sufficient value, then they don't feel
> overcharged even when there isn't enough real value to justify the price
> premium, as in the case of "premium" bottled water.


Hello, John:

Not to mention, "gourmet hot dogs." <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.TakeThisOut@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

John Turco wrote:
[]
> Oh, so, I could then enjoy the best of both worlds, in terms of image
> stabilization?
>
> Thank you, kindly, for confirming Pentax's superiority in modern DSLR
> ergonomics. <g>
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net>

Unfortunately, as Pentax don't offer in-lens IS, you still loose out. <G>

But do try the test I suggested (300mm lens, switch IS on and off) to see
just why I suggest in-lens IS is best.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss