[Parallax]

I think you should stop this charade right now.

This is just a guess, but I have a hunch that he won't continue. Well, not in this thread, anyway.

[clackers]

Baffling stuff from AfterPentax.

The designer of the DFA*50 is a Pentax veteran named Minoru Murayama, been with them since 2003, has designed everything from endoscopes to lasers to the DFA 150-450.

Ricoh public DFA*50/1.4 patent in Japan - PentaxForums.com

If a thread ban's been placed, great. But that bloke has successfully poisoned the thread, of course, that's searchable on Google by anyone wanting to know about the issue. Ignoring (suggested by some members) doesn't solve that.

Straight out FUD. He's been careful to say 'it could be, prove otherwise', but that is a classic troll's argument, reversing the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, it's up to them to provide evidence for their theory.

[Rondec]

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.

I think it would be odd for Pentax to pay someone else to design the lens for them and then make it themself. I suppose it "could" happen, but in the real world, it wouldn't.

Our experience in the past tells us that when Tamron designs and makes a DFA 24-70/15-30/70-210 lenses for Pentax we know it and you know what? Pentax doesn't hold any of those patents.

When it came to Tokina, Tokina had the patent to the 12-24 and Pentax had the patents to the 35 macro, 100 macro, 10-17 FE, 16-50 and 50-135. Why does Tokina have the patent to the 12-24? Is it because Pentax designed it and then gave them the patent rights? Occam's Razor tells us that Tokina designed that lens and therefore hold that patent.

But I guess believe whatever you believe.

[house]

How do we know that the "Pentax-tamrons" are designed by Tamron? I don't dispute it but I can't find any info on the Ricoh website. Has it been officially communicated?

[Sandy Hancock]

How do we know that the "Pentax-tamrons" are designed by Tamron? I don't dispute it but I can't find any info on the Ricoh website. Has it been officially communicated?

It's pretty obvious in the case of the DFA15-30, DFA24-70 and DFA70-210.
I'm not sure there is any requirement for Ricoh to state it publicly. Does any other company disclose that sort of collaboration?

[angerdan]

How do we know that the "Pentax-tamrons" are designed by Tamron?

Some indicators:

• The Tamrons has been announced before the Pentax versions
• The Tamrons has been available earlier than the Pentax
• The Tamrons are cheaper
• Pentax don't tell anything about the development of the three Tamron lenses.
  For the D FA* lenses they do as well as for the FA Limiteds

[robbiec]

Some indicators:

• The Tamrons has been announced before the Pentax versions
• The Tamrons has been vailable earlier than the Pentax
• The Tamrons are cheaper
• Pentax don't tell anything about the development of the three Tamron lenses.
  For the D FA* lenses they do as well as for the FA Limiteds

That the DFA15-30, 24-70 and 70-210 are licensed from Tamron is not in dispute. Thanks for the good indicators @angerdan. That is why I don't have them. The DFA*s 70-200, 50 and 85 are in house Pentax designs and it is the reason why I currently right now have 2 out of the 3 in my bag, soon to be rectified to 3 out of 3. All very black and white, no grey area. You could say I'm a lens snob, a Pentax purest - I do have too other lenses from other brands, a Zeiss and a Leitz which I consider being of the same stature as Pentax as optical design houses.
Now for those that doubt it, please stop trying to dilute the design providence of the DFA*50 and what is sure to be a class leading DFA*85 in the sub €3K range, which have both been researched, designed, patented, manufactured and sold as Pentax, part of Ricoh Imaging.

---

Last edited by robbiec; 06-28-2020 at 11:48 AM.

[house]

It's pretty obvious in the case of the DFA15-30, DFA24-70 and DFA70-210.
I'm not sure there is any requirement for Ricoh to state it publicly. Does any other company disclose that sort of collaboration?

This unfortunately means that the only way to know is to speculate, research and guess. "We" have reached a consensus about those lenses with very little (no?) help from Ricoh. Thing is that we are in the same place with all other lenses. We can only guess based on what info we can glean from various sources.

Unfortunately this means that speculation is fair but can be more or less accurate. Being overly critical of those that continue that process for all lenses doesnt make sense. There appear to be huge open questions even about those known lenses. Differing reviewed performance hasn't been properly resolved yet because we are just guessing.

I generally buy the PF consensus because it often arrived at by a group of knowledgeable people and some guesses are better than others.

It just unfair to be shocked and appaled when people do it to the wrong lenses.

[Wheatfield]

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.

Enough please. You've made your point. Move on now.

[angerdan]

Now please stop trying to dilute the design providence of the DFA*50 and what is sure to be a class leading DFA*85 in the sub €3K range, which have both been researched, designed, patented, manufactured and sold as Pentax, part of Ricoh Imaging.

I guess/hope you didn't mean me with the last part of your post?

[robbiec]

I guess/hope you didn't mean me with the last part of your post?

No I didn't, I've revised my last part to be far less specific.No names, no pack drill. Apologies for the confusion.

[gatorguy]

Enough please. You've made your point. Move on now.

He was banned from this thread yesteday so everyone relax. Parallax has done proper damage control.

[Wheatfield]

Thanks guys. The information I asked for has been found.
[/Thread]

[monochrome]

Thanks guys. The information I asked for has been found.
[/Thread]

As the OP, in the Thread Moderation dropdown at the top of the page you can Close the thread.

[Wheatfield]

As the OP, in the Thread Moderation dropdown at the top of the page you can Close the thread.

You must be more special than I am.