[biz-engineer]

If you outsource your flagship lens, what does that say about your ability to design and deliver lenses?

It says nothing. It depends how you look at it. If you look at it as a business manager, you don't spend money to re-develop something that already is available to everyone in the open market, and you spend the resources that you have on things that differentiate Pentax from competition.

[monochrome]

Only when you backtrace the names of lens designers from lens patents might you be sure of who really designed a lens. But it still may not be any guide to who makes it.

This lens was, reportedly (here), designed by Hirakawa Jun. Perhaps an improved Tamron 24~70 is the only way to obtain his design for the Pentax 'flagship' lens.

[Rondec]

I have and I am disappointed, sad and more than a little dismayed. I still feel that the 24-70 is the foundation of any FF system. For Ricoh to use a third party design, no matter how good, makes me question their ability and commitment to FF and to Pentax in general.
This has nothing to do with the lens, many seem to feel it will be good. It has to do with brand and company pride. If you outsource your flagship lens, what does that say about your ability to design and deliver lenses?

I wouldn't be so discouraged. Tamron and Pentax have worked together a lot over the years and Pentax is a little company that has their hands full trying to get a full frame body out there along with a full line up of lenses.

The biggest problems that I have had with Tamron lenses in the past has been the fact that they don't give Pentax colors/flare resistance. However, it looks as though this lens will be using genuine Pentax coatings, meaning, that it will give the colors we expect and hopefully a little better performance from the Tamron version of the lens. Having Tamron's motor in the lens actually gives a better security than having Pentax design the SDM, which they certainly don't have a good history with.

[northcoastgreg]

I still feel that the 24-70 is the foundation of any FF system. For Ricoh to use a third party design, no matter how good, makes me question their ability and commitment to FF and to Pentax in general.

While this Tamron rebadge may reflect on Ricoh's ability to design all the lenses required for an FF rollout, I don't think it reflects on their commitment. They could have, as a point of pride, insisted on making their own f2.8 FF standard lens --- and then failed to have the lens ready for the FF camera release. They're not pulling a Sony here and introducing their FF camera with an insufficient lens lineup. They swallowed their pride and accepted a couple of Tamron f2.8 zooms to fill out their FF trinity. So while I'm a bit surprised at Pentax resorting to Tamron glass to fill out their pro-grade line-up, I'm not in the least disappointed. The DFA 24-70 will be a very good lens. And the DFA 15-30 will be even better.

---

Last edited by northcoastgreg; 09-25-2015 at 01:46 PM.

[biz-engineer]

While this Tamron rebadge may reflect on Ricoh's ability to design all the lenses required for an FF rollout, I don't think it reflects on their commitment. They could have, as a point of pride, insisted on making their own f2.8 FF standard lens --- and then failed to have the lens ready for the FF camera release. They're not pulling a Sony here and introducing their FF camera with an insufficient lens lineup. They swallowed their pride and accepted a couple of Tamron f2.8 zooms to fill out their FF trinity. So while I'm a bit surprised at Pentax resorting to Tamron glass to fill out their pro-grade line-up, I'm not in the least disappointed. The DA 24-70 will be a very good lens. And the DA 15-30 will be even better.

The difference between Pentax and Canikon is that Canikon already more or less had a bunch on FF lenses such as the 100-400 usable on APS and FF.
Pentax policy was to focus on APSC only lenses and then Ricoh decided to do a 90 degree turn into FF direction, so all of a sudden, they have to design several lenses in parallel.

[boriscleto]

The DA 24-70 will be a very good lens. And the DA 15-30 will be even better.

Except that they are D FA.

[monochrome]

It isn't reallt Pro Grade. Pro Grade is D-FA* (not that the 150-450 isn't a superb lens).

Never forget Pentax - referred to as a small company - must maintain and keep fresh (that is design new products for) Interchangeable Lens Cameras and Lenses in:

• Q Mount
• APSc
• FF
• 645

I can't think of another company that has so broad a product catalog, though we all can see in some places it isn't very deep.

[northcoastgreg]

Except that they are D FA.

True enough. I've corrected the mistake.

[jatrax]

It says nothing. It depends how you look at it. If you look at it as a business manager, you don't spend money to re-develop something that already is available to everyone in the open market, and you spend the resources that you have on things that differentiate Pentax from competition.

I disagree with that, as I said it is not about the lens, it is about the company making their own flagship lens. Had they licensed/used/rebadged a 24-105 design and called it the FF kit lens, I would be fine with that. But the 24-70 is what they will (or should) be building the entire FF system around. So the lens they use is a third party design, priced at third party pricing, and not marked with the star (like the 70-200) to indicated the best quality. So the only normal zoom they have for the FF system is a third party knock-off, already available for all other systems. Sorry, that makes no sense to me. Arguably when buying a FF system you are buying the glass, not a camera body. Pentax just stated that the best they can do is buy an old design from Tamron. That's sad.

I wouldn't be so discouraged. Tamron and Pentax have worked together a lot over the years and Pentax is a little company that has their hands full trying to get a full frame body out there along with a full line up of lenses.

Well, it's not like I'm going to cry and sell all my kit and move to another brand. But I am disappointed in this decision, it indicates to me they really do not understand this business as well as I thought they did. From a business standpoint I can see the logic, from building a brand this is not IMHO the way to go. How are they going to compare their FF system to the competition when their flagship lens is a Tamron? Which is also available for Canon and Nikon as well as the REAL flagship lenses those brands have.

While this Tamron rebadge may reflect on Ricoh's ability to design all the lenses required for an FF rollout, I don't think it reflects on their commitment. They could have, as a point of pride, insisted on making their own f2.8 FF standard lens --- and then failed to have the lens ready for the FF camera release.

Quite possibly true, we just do not know. And maybe that is why it is SDM WR and not '*'. But having two 24-70 f/2.8 lenses in the catalog seems unlikely, so seeing RIcoh release the expected (by me anyway) DFA*24-70 HD DC AW lens does not seem possible.

The good news, however, is that I am no longer upset that the FF has been delayed until next year. That will give me and others more time to look at this 'flagship' lens and make decisions.

[Giklab]

"old design by Tamron"
The amount of people confusing this with the 28-75 is too damn high!

[jatrax]

"old design by Tamron" The amount of people confusing this with the 28-75 is too damn high!

Not confusing it with anything, according to the Tamron reviews this lens dates from 2012. Maybe that is not "old" in Pentax lens terms, but it is not a "new" design.

[monochrome]

So the lens they use is a third party design, priced at third party pricing, and not marked with the star (like the 70-200) to indicated the best quality. So the only normal zoom they have for the FF system is a third party knock-off, already available for all other systems. Sorry, that makes no sense to me. Arguably when buying a FF system you are buying the glass, not a camera body. Pentax just stated that the best they can do is buy an old design from Tamron. That's sad.

I think about the FF Ricoh said something like, "refining the design to meet the demands of their consumers."

Maybe they've discovered in their preliminary round of beta grouping the system with professionals that - unlike the 645Z - there really isn't enough professional interest to justify the expense of a * normal zoom. Maybe pro's (there are so few of them now anyway) really want to see the support network, not just the lenses. Maybe the rumors of in-house repair center in the USA responds to that. Maybe bringing the webstore in house (which it appears they are doing in Denver) responds to that. Maybe high consumer will be it until the support infrastructure is built. Maybe that's why kenspo is so pissed.

Maybe the FF delay is to reposition versus the D750 instead of the D810. Maybe they missed the order cycle and they'll bring the * normal zoom next year - doesn't Canon have both?

Maybe they're giving copiers away in the US to maintain market share versus Canon (that part is true - Konica Minolta is selling software to make profit), so corporate cut their funding commitment.

Maybe it's a chicken or egg question and they decided they'd better start with the egg instead of the chicken.

Who knows what this means? We certainly don't.

[biz-engineer]

From a business standpoint I can see the logic, from building a brand this is not IMHO the way to go.

That's exactly the point. Keep in mind that, technically, Tamron and Sigma have upped their game, there is not much difference with OEM equivalent lenses, sometimes Tamron or Sigma lenses fare even then OEM, and are cheaper. On a full frame sensor, a DFA will outresolve any of your DA and DA* lenses. Technically, the limitation of Tamron or Sigma lenses on a Pentax body is not having in-body lens correction, that difference will be gone with a Pentax DFA adaption. Now, yes, the reuse of the Tamron lens (cheaper in other mounts) is doing a bit of Pentax brand dilution, especially for a FF system supposed to be the high-end of serious amateurs or pros. I'm also sensitive to brand, even if I know that brand name makes absolutely no difference to the photos I take.

[wpvv]

I'd rather have a company that outsources and survives than the other way round.
What count is whether the optics fit nicely in the entire range (optically, ergomics, looks), and I think it does.

Pentax' forte seems to be their relatively small primes. I do hope the come out with some nice wide angles there!