[luftfluss]

Well I would like to have pentax designed lenses. Tamrons good no doubt. But why not a modern DFA 20-35mm? They have the legacy designs. They could modernise those.

I wonder if Ricoh has considered this. They set a precedent already with the HD FA 35/2..

[Serkevan]

I wonder if Ricoh has considered this. They set a precedent already with the HD FA 35/2..

The 35/2 was still in production, which probably means they either had the glass elements available or they are still making them - therefore it would be almost trivial to update the barrel and re-coat the glass. However, I would think the machinery isn't set up for the 20-35 anymore, so there's less of an incentive.

That's not to say I wouldn't like it, I just think a straight HD rework is unlikely. A redesign is a different story.

[luftfluss]

The 35/2 was still in production, which probably means they either had the glass elements available or they are still making them - therefore it would be almost trivial to update the barrel and re-coat the glass. However, I would think the machinery isn't set up for the 20-35 anymore, so there's less of an incentive.

That's not to say I wouldn't like it, I just think a straight HD rework is unlikely. A redesign is a different story.

Yeah, I thought about that. I am simply curious if Ricoh did consider the option, and the circumstances you described ended the consideration.

Or perhaps Ricoh feels that the lighter alternative to the DFA 15-30 is the upcoming DFA 21 Ltd.

[DWS1]

Why even care about who designs or build a lens as long as it performs the way you want it to?

[Serkevan]

Why even care about who designs or build a lens as long as it performs the way you want it to?

I think the only reasonable... well, reason, is that the Pentax version of the 70-210/4 is much more expensive (and I'm not saying 10-20% more to offset the licensing cost, I'm talking 50% higher MRSP or more than twice the street price in Germany) than the Canikon mounts while releasing almost two years later. That's not a dig at the lens itself, which is great, but it is a tad irking.

The other two zooms don't have such a price discrepancy so it's far less of an issue.

[stevebrot]

But I think you didn't understand what I wanted to say. I am talking about natively designed glass for FF.

You shoot APS-C right, K-50?


Steve

(...boriscleto'ed...)

[stevebrot]

the Pentax version of the 70-210/4 is much more expensive (and I'm not saying 10-20% more to offset the licensing cost, I'm talking 50% higher MRSP or more than twice the street price in Germany) than the Canikon mounts

Those other mounts debuted at a price point similar to the D FA 70-210/4. I would expect the 70-210/4 to be about $850 here in the US by spring.


Steve

[Serkevan]

Those other mounts debuted at a price point similar to the D FA 70-210/4. I would expect the 70-210/4 to be about $850 here in the US by spring.

Steve

The Tamron released at $800 and the Pentax at $1100. That's a 37.5% increase. The Tamron has been more or less on a permanent sale in Europe for half a year now, at 450€. The Pentax hasn't gone below 900€ AFAIK.

[stevebrot]

The Tamron released at $800 and the Pentax at $1100. That's a 37.5% increase. The Tamron has been more or less on a permanent sale in Europe for half a year now, at 450€. The Pentax hasn't gone below 900€ AFAIK.

My bad...you are correct. The Tamron is a great deal. Too bad one must be shooting either Canon or Nikon to take advantage. Too bad for Pentax that they are a bit above market for that class of lens in both Europe and N. America. At least they don't have to worry about Tamron or Sigma undercutting them.


Steve

[Serkevan]

My bad...you are correct. The Tamron is a great deal. Too bad one must be shooting either Canon or Nikon to take advantage. Too bad for Pentax that they are a bit above market for that class of lens in both Europe and N. America. At least they don't have to worry about Tamron or Sigma undercutting them.


Steve

Yeah, it's the only of the three modern ones... the 24-70 and 15-30 are actually cheaper than the G2 Tamron versions here (although teeeechnically the G2 models are slightly improved). And as I said before, it's the one "but" that one could draw. I don't think anyone could reasonably complain about the f/2.8 zooms (or, optically, really complain about the 70-210 - it's just that the F/EF mount Tamron is a ridiculously good value, IMO). I don't think the Pentax is even *that* expensive in that class: the Canon 70-200/4L IS ii is $1300 in B&H, and the Nikon is $1400...

Also the Pentax barrel looks substantially better than the Tamron one and that's objective truth, not taste .

[VSTAR]

I drive a Scion Xb trd as my winter car....so really just a rebadged Toyota. Not sure how that makes a difference other than it is a good car made by a good manufacturer.

So if a Pentax lens is designed by another company, then tweaked by Pentax when badged as one of their own...all I care about is how does the lens perform and is it manufactured well.

Now if it was a Sears brand k mount badged as a Pentax, I may have a problem with that.

[SunnyG.]

The problem is that 'sensible' wide angle zooms have gone out the window.15-30 is the new 20-35 - manufacturers need it in their line-up, the problems of weight, size and filters as big as dinner plates are afterthoughts.

Once they have a big, heavy, expensive 15-30, a smaller, compact, easier to handle 20-35 would take sales off the 15-30 which had cost a huge amount of R&D resources. It's the price to be paid by having the prestigious 15-30 in the line-up because that's a 'must have' lens to be seen as a credible system.

But they could keep the 15-30 in the lower end. And instead bring a 12-24 f2.4? For the full frame line. A flagship offering

[pres589]

… a full-frame 12-24mm f2.4? That performs better than the 15-30 f2.8 that we have now? Do you know how large, heavy, and expensive that would be?

[BryantCP]

I don't think a lot of people would mind if Pentax rebadged the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 OSD and put some HD coatings on it....

I would second that ! I have the Nikon version and am very pleased with it . Its relatively compact, affordable and surprisingly good. Also, unlike Pentax DFA15-30 it accepts a circular polarizer. For me at least it would be a big incentive to buy a K-1 II.

[Serkevan]

But they could keep the 15-30 in the lower end. And instead bring a 12-24 f2.4? For the full frame line. A flagship offering

Yeah, no. That's gonna be a behemoth, a ridiculously expensive lens (the Sony 12-24/2.8 is 3300€!) needed for basically no real life situations and basically financial suicide for Pentax.

If you want a practical fast ultra wide you make a prime. Like the D FA 21. Or you go for something like the Laowa 12/2.8 - a Pentax take on that one would be much better.