[swanlefitte]

You forgot Zeiss’s role, where they put the green CA into it, so it wouldn't compete with their 50.

Oh Please! You probably believe our flat earth is a bi polar one instead of a monopole.😂
Flat Earth Maps - The Flat Earth Wiki

[monochrome]

"as a possible weakness in the proof supplied" That is what I meant. Holding a patent is not proof that you developed or designed something. But I can imagine that companies work together to lower the costs of R&D, that is not uncommon. It is also stated that Ricoh used a third party for their 18-270 and that that lens was tweaked to comply with Ricoh/Pentax standards. Pentax made the 18-55 and 50-200 for Samsung camera's and the lenses were tweaked to comply with Schneider-Kreuznach standards.

Alinsky tactics. What is your motivation for continuing this argument? Why are you doing this?

Especially here?

[UncleVanya]

They would not produce a Development Story featuring the lens design team if they outsourced the lens design work. They even say they developed the SDM ring motor.

For an antagonist to say “We Developed” is merely semantics - that Tokna did the actual work but Pentax can legally claim the work since they own the patent - is beyond an unreasonable argument. To me such an accusation is tantamount to claiming Ricoh is outright boldly and arrogantly lying on the product page for the DFA*50/1.4 (and now also on the DFA85/1.4 page).

I agree, and I think afterPentax was just stating that a patent can be owned under circumstances that don't establish that they developed it. I don't get the impression anyone here is actually actively questioning the facts, and I think some people are over reacting.

The fact that patent ownership isn't itself sufficient to show design expertise is the root of the detractors arguments.
This is despite the clear indication that this isn't the case with this lens. I don't see anyone here saying the lens wasn't designed by Pentax.

To be honest I don't know what will convince some people. The moon landing hoax crowd is a great example of the lengths people will go to rationalize their beliefs. The landing happened, the proof is overwhelming, but there are those unable to believe that twist and distort every tiny thing to deny it.

Finally, what does it actually matter? If you like the lens, buy it. Who cares if it was designed secretly by Martian immigrants on Venus for the Plutonian empire's plan to discredit Pentax...

[monochrome]

I agree, and I think afterPentax was just stating that a patent can be owned under circumstances that don't establish that they developed it. I don't get the impression anyone here is actually actively questioning the facts, and I think some people are over reacting.

The fact that patent ownership isn't itself sufficient to show design expertise is the root of the detractors arguments.
This is despite the clear indication that this isn't the case with this lens. I don't see anyone here saying the lens wasn't designed by Pentax.

To be honest I don't know what will convince some people. The moon landing hoax crowd is a great example of the lengths people will go to rationalize their beliefs. The landing happened, the proof is overwhelming, but there are those unable to believe that twist and distort every tiny thing to deny it.

Finally, what does it actually matter? If you like the lens, buy it. Who cares if it was designed secretly by Martian immigrants on Venus for the Plutonian empire's plan to discredit Pentax...

It does matter. Ricoh is trying to establish a Pentax brand identifier. This isn’t not just sophistry on the part of supposed doubters. It is intentionally damaging to the brand.

And it certainly is damaging to the PentaxForums brand.

[robbiec]

OK, I'm phoning Japan on Monday and will get an answer once and for all. All I have to do is phone Ricoh Imaging, ask to speak with the manger of optical design and have a chit chat about some lunatics on the Internet who think that Pentax are unable to design a lens anymore and what does he think about that? After listening to him either laughing convulsively for 5 mins or swearing in Japanese, I'm sure I'll get an answer Could be that it is an in-house joke and the various teams seed various rumours of collaboration for giggles. We've had Tamron, Tokina, Sigma typically so that leaves Cosina, Zeiss and Leitz to complete the non mature OEMs.
PS- I forgot Voightlander but Cosina covers them.

[UncleVanya]

It does matter. Ricoh is trying to establish a Pentax brand identifier. This isn’t not just sophistry on the part of supposed doubters. It is intentionally damaging to the brand.

And it certainly is damaging to the PentaxForums brand.

Assuming you are right what's to be done? My experience with crackpot theories is that they can't be pushed back with facts. Any reasonable explanation will be viewed as questionable and said to be riddled with falsehoods by the biased imaginations of those buying into the conspiracy theory.

I don't think posting the truth is without some value, but I do think incontrovertible proof isn't realistic because of the nature of the people involved. Finally, I don't honestly think anyone spouting this nonsense is a potential customer. Most are likely just looking for something to say and repeating something they saw. So the target should be to provide reasonable counter arguments that rational people can understand for those on the fence. Sow the seeds of truth, but expect the crop to fail to take root in those who believe the worst of Pentax.

[monochrome]

"as a possible weakness in the proof supplied" That is what I meant. Holding a patent is not proof that you developed or designed something. But I can imagine that companies work together to lower the costs of R&D, that is not uncommon. It is also stated that Ricoh used a third party for their 18-270 and that that lens was tweaked to comply with Ricoh/Pentax standards. Pentax made the 18-55 and 50-200 for Samsung camera's and the lenses were tweaked to comply with Schneider-Kreuznach standards.

Irrelevant. You present no proof Samsung had anything to contribute to the K10/K20 cameras nor that Schneider-Kreuznach was involved in altering the Pentax designs of the lenses.

Samsung outright rebranded Pentax products. Full Stop. Prove otherwise or withdraw the point.

[monochrome]

Assuming you are right what's to be done? My experience with crackpot theories is that they can't be pushed back with facts. Any reasonable explanation will be viewed as questionable and said to be riddled with falsehoods by the biased imaginations of those buying into the conspiracy theory.

I don't think posting the truth is without some value, but I do think incontrovertible proof isn't realistic because of the nature of the people involved. Finally, I don't honestly think anyone spouting this nonsense is a potential customer. Most are likely just looking for something to say and repeating something they saw. So the target should be to provide reasonable counter arguments that rational people can understand for those on the fence. Sow the seeds of truth, but expect the crop to fail to take root in those who believe the worst of Pentax.

1. Warn
2. Moderate
3. Discipline
4. Ban

[Parallax]

"as a possible weakness in the proof supplied" That is what I meant. Holding a patent is not proof that you developed or designed something. But I can imagine that companies work together to lower the costs of R&D, that is not uncommon. It is also stated that Ricoh used a third party for their 18-270 and that that lens was tweaked to comply with Ricoh/Pentax standards. Pentax made the 18-55 and 50-200 for Samsung camera's and the lenses were tweaked to comply with Schneider-Kreuznach standards.

If you have proof of anything you've said please post it.
If not, let the issue go and move your soap box somewhere else.

[Pål Jensen]

Doesn't Pentax even make the Tokina......

[robbiec]

Doesn't Pentax even make the Tokina......

Logic like that doesn't work on some.

[monochrome]

OK, I'm phoning Japan on Monday and will get an answer once and for all. All I have to do is phone Ricoh Imaging, ask to speak with the manger of optical design and have a chit chat about some lunatics on the Internet who think that Pentax are unable to design a lens anymore and what does he think about that? After listening to him either laughing convulsively for 5 mins or swearing in Japanese, I'm sure I'll get an answer Could be that it is an in-house joke and the various teams seed various rumours of collaboration for giggles. We've had Tamron, Tokina, Sigma typically so that leaves Cosina, Zeiss and Leitz to complete the non mature OEMs.
PS- I forgot Voightlander but Cosina covers them.

Don’t forget to ask about Q lenses. They were assembled by Nidec Copal.

Alinsky tactics. What is your motivation for continuing this argument? Why are you doing this?

Especially here?

But to go to my original reaction. I started the example with the word suppose. I never anywhere in this argument stated that Ricoh/Pentax did not develop the lens itself. It was just an example to show that a company can have a patent on something they did not design themselves. If you only knew how many court cases there have been were the original designer tried to get a patent in his or hers name and that the company they worked for or that gave them the assignment according to the court is the legal owner of the patent, because they developed or designed something at the request of the company. So it is just an example to show that a company can have a patent on something they did not design. This happens everyday so it is nothing out of the ordinary.

[gatorguy]

But to go to my original reaction. I started the example with the word suppose. I never anywhere in this argument stated that Ricoh/Pentax did not develop the lens itself. It was just an example to show that a company can have a patent on something they did not design themselves. If you only knew how many court cases there have been were the original designer tried to get a patent in his or hers name and that the company they worked for or that gave them the assignment according to the court is the legal owner of the patent, because they developed or designed something at the request of the company. So it is just an example to show that a company can have a patent on something they did not design. This happens everyday so it is nothing out of the ordinary.

Clutch those straws tightly my friend.

It's a Pentax designed lens, based on Pentax owned IP, and licenced from Pentax by Tokina to create a product for other lens mounts. Occam's Razor.

There is no evidence anywhere that it is anything but, and being the honest soul you are it's perfectly OK to admit it yourself.
IMHO you're not being helpful, follow the advice given by moderator Parallax.

[monochrome]

But to go to my original reaction. I started the example with the word suppose. I never anywhere in this argument stated that Ricoh/Pentax did not develop the lens itself. It was just an example to show that a company can have a patent on something they did not design themselves. If you only knew how many court cases there have been were the original designer tried to get a patent in his or hers name and that the company they worked for or that gave them the assignment according to the court is the legal owner of the patent, because they developed or designed something at the request of the company. So it is just an example to show that a company can have a patent on something they did not design. This happens everyday so it is nothing out of the ordinary.

But why do you bother? Why persist in this insane fake concern trolling narrative? What’s your motivation? It certainly isn’t to bring any facts to the discussion or you would have done so by now, We certainly have - where’s yours?

You could make these claims for any company that makes anything, then qualify them with a suppose clause to fall back on when challenged

I know Tesla owns the old NUMMI plant (Toyota / GM) and have filed a ton of patents and have a sophisticated website where you can actually buy the cars and there are plenty of photos of them making cars inside the plant and lots of people drive them and get firmware updates over the air - but that doesn’t prove that Tesla actually designs and builds the cars. For all we know an alliance of GM and Toyota design the cars and Tesla is a front. It is possible they don’t want the public to know this because that might cast doubt on their remaining ICE vehicles - so they set up an elaborate conspiracy to hide who is really designing Tesla cars. I mean, I suppose that could be true, right?



I think you should end this charade right now..