On Friday, November 2, 2001, at 08:51 AM, Kent Gittings wrote: > I suppose since Nikon has done this in year's past and present (1000/11 > mirror lens was built by Celestron, a couple of the 400mm+ pro lenses > are > built by Tokina and not mentioning a couple of the Cosina built bodies) > it > would seem reasonable that other companies can get away with the same > thing.
I don't believe that any of the big camera companies manufacture their sub-$100 cameras. I saw one of Nikon's offerings available from Goko and Vivitar. Same camera, same specs, different colour, different box. In the case of the 28-200 from Pentax, I believe that the thinking is along these lines... Developing a decent 28-200 is hard and will require R&D. The R&D costs for a good 28-200 for someone who has never produced a 28-200 before are potentially high enough that the lens will be more expensive than similar offerings from competitors who have been designing and building 28-200s for a while, and who produce a good 28-200. Licensing someone else's 28-200, on the other hand, would allow a lower price and a competitive quality of lens right off the bat. The reason that Tamron's 28-200s are better than Pentax's Tamron-designed 28-200 is simple -- Tamron has continued development of the lens, while Pentax has not. Perhaps it did not sell well enough to warrant further investment? Or perhaps it sells well enough without any improvement? Nikon were bright enough to realize that Tokina make some really stellar long lenses. Why invest the money in R&D when someone you've already got a relationship with (IIRC Tokina make Nikon's lens mount assemblies) has already spent the money and developed the product you'd like to sell? -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
