[pederd]

The environmentalist requirement for lenses to be constructed with lead-free glass would necessitate a re-design of these lenses.

There is no environmental legislation that require lead-free glass, at least not in European directives. Optical glass are excluded from the requirements in the RoHS-directives. And several countries outside Europe that has restrictions of hazardous substances, uses adopted European directives.

[Digitalis]

The EU is such a mess that we have to deal with every politician is trying to do something by scaring people about everything and thinking about the children and if they can't legislate something, they create voluntary directives, usually "green" ones, and then state them as a success for their careers.

I seem to recall the Pentax 67 and 645NII and the lenses made for them being removed from sale because of the use of leaded soldering in their production.

There is no environmental legislation that require lead-free glass,at least not in European directives.

yes, but i'm not going to wade through all that legislation to get to the bottom of it, all I know is that while a certain amount of Lead and cadmium is allowed on the markets( CdS light cells in cameras,NiCd batteries.etc). If a product contains higher amounts of those substances than local tolerances allow then that product isn't likely to be banned outright. In the EU as far as I can see there are efforts to drive down the maximum allowable tolerances for the sake of appearing "greener" - F****ng politicians, they will do just about anything to make their lives seem worthwhile.


This was a quick shot of the manual that came with my sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6. I can't read Japanese but I do know the chemical symbols listed there( not bad for ISO 128000 on the K5IIs).

[lytrytyr]

This was a quick shot of the manual that came with my sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6. I can't read Japanese but I do know the chemical symbols listed there.

Perhaps one of our Chinese forum members can help explain.

Did the table appear in any other part of the manual?

[Digitalis]

Did the table appear in any other part of the manual?

sadly no - it was only in that section of the manual. - I can't spot the difference between japanese and chinese... I just don't get eastern languages

is is clear that there is lead used in the, how much of it there is and the components that contain it is the question.
ED: I went through current European WEEE/ROHS legislation - you guys owe me hugely for that - and photographic optics are not on the exempt list - so they have to conform with ROHS guidelines by using reduced lead content in optical glass.

According to the guidelines in ROHS II - established December 2012:

"...lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), the maximum concentration is 0.1 % by weight in all homogeneous materials..."

So the bottom line is that Pentax would still have to re-design all their older lenses if they wanted to re-make them to be able to be sold in the EU.... or anywhere else for that matter.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 03-03-2013 at 09:33 AM.

[wlachan]

From top to bottom: (those are Simplified Chinese BTW)
Outer body/shell (metal)
Outer body/shell (resin/plastic)
Circuit board
Optical lenses
Mechanical parts

[Rob22315]

Here's my favorite k-mount website.

http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/

It hasn't been kept up for the last 2 or 3 years but it's great for old stuff.

[lytrytyr]

From top to bottom: (those are Simplified Chinese BTW)
Outer body/shell (metal)
Outer body/shell (resin/plastic)
Circuit board
Optical lenses
Mechanical parts

Thanks. So some lead in the metal shell, and maybe in the solder (?), but none in the glass.

[Digitalis]

Thanks Wlachlan: Soldier being used on circuit boards is pretty common these days, lead is used to reduce the formation of tin whiskers in soldered components. The fact that there isn't any lead in the glass is interesting as the sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 uses some pretty exotic glass types in its construction.

the maximum concentration is 0.1 % by weight in all homogeneous materials

For those interested according tot the ROHS FAQ a homogenous material is defined as a material where a hazardous material cannot be removed by mechanical or chemical means - in other words the material is a part of the molecular structure of the material.

Flint glass which is commonly used in lens design can have lead content ranging from 4-60%

[wlachan]

It says, 'O' means the amount of dangerous materals presents is less than the SJ/T11363-2006 standard specifies, while 'X' means more than that standard requires. I would imagine "within that standard" and "completely free of" can be quite different.

[Alizarine]

Can't they just update the FA*24 to D FA*24 and make it WR too? (ok, if they want to keep the size down at least make it f2.4 or f2.8, but please no slower than that). It's not stellar, as some may say (I'm OK with the samples I see), but it's quite the missing link. If the DA21 wasn't a pancake lens but was around f2.5, I think that would be better.

[Digitalis]

Can't they just update the FA*24 to D FA*24 and make it WR too?

I would be happier if the re-designed FA*24mm entirely. The only lenses I would like to see pentax make again are the FA*200mm f/4 [IF] ED MACRO, SMCP-50mm f/1.2, the FA*85mm f/1.4 and the FA*250-600mm f/5.6[IF] ED

[snake]

Pentax has no reason to make the FA85 again unless it's a real update, like WR, as the Sigma 85 is really, really good.

The DA55 still annoys me. If we were on FF, that would be fine, but we're on APS, so a 78mm lens isn't always practical. It would be nice if Pentax FINALLY came up with a fast 35 or so that was WR.

And no, the 31 isn't a replacement. It's not 1.4 and it's not WR.

[Digitalis]

Pentax has no reason to make the FA85 again unless it's a real update, like WR, as the Sigma 85 is really, really good.

In case you haven't noticed pentax isn't going to sit on its laurels and let Sigma steal their customers, if pentax wants to be competitive they are going to have to make a 85mm f/1.4 (or f/1.2 *hint* *hint*) lens. I pentax really wanted to, they could make a FA*90mm f/2 APO Limited lens - I would buy that.

But then again the FA77 does extremely well for portraiture on 35mm, and when it is stopped down is impressively sharp.

And no, the 31 isn't a replacement. It's not 1.4 and it's not WR.

The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is trivial - these days with Higher ISO performance being far beyond what was possible with film I think 1/3rd of a stop is hardly going to be missed. Weather resistance really isn't an issue for me, I have used my FA31 is light rain without issue - (YMMV)

[sTi]

Pentax has no reason to make the FA85 again unless it's a real update, like WR, as the Sigma 85 is really, really good.

The DA55 still annoys me. If we were on FF, that would be fine, but we're on APS, so a 78mm lens isn't always practical..

I don't understand you here. With the exact crop factor (1.53), that would make it equivalent to a 84/1.4 lens. Now what was the classic focal length for a portrait lens again ...?

[goubejp]

I would like to see simply a production batch of lenses like FA200 F4 macro, FA250-600, FA400 f5.6... They would sell them quite a nice price tag and make a lot of us happy.