Pentax Files DA12-35mm f3.5-4.5 WR SDM Patent

FullertonImages · 12-24-2010, 10:18 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by abacus07

I don't think there is one person that wouldn't want a bigger aperture in a lens if there weren't other tradeoffs. But the end users that you described usually want something to be as portable as possible. And in a lot cases they are also outdoors where they are stopping it down anyway.

Like I said earlier, I guess it depends who's shooting. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would gladly give up the f/2.8 to have a smaller package. And in a perfect world, they would make both lenses and we could all be happy. I would probably even want both. But from my perspective as a pro, I would gladly take a hit on size, weight and cost to have the capabilities of f/2.8 at that focal length. That's not to say that I wouldn't sometimes want a smaller version. That's why there is the Canon 16-35/2.8, and 17-40/4; and I know quite a few people have both. But all in all, if I could only have one, I would rather have the faster, bigger lens. But something I've found from my experience shooting professionally, and I found the same thing to be true when I was an auto mechanic, is that 90% of the jobs can be pulled off with 10% of the skills, knowledge and equipment that there is. Being pro is about having the other 90% of the skills, knowledge and equipment to pull off the other 10% of the jobs. I think that's most likely true of just about anything.

**Kammerer** · 12-24-2010, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by FullertonImages

But from my perspective as a pro, I would gladly take a hit on size, weight and cost to have the capabilities of f/2.8 at that focal length.

Ben,

Would you mind clarifying this a bit, for educational purposes? For example, would you point to one or two images from your (quite amazing) blog/web site that were shot with a wide-angle lens, and would have been improved if you had a f/2.8?

Thanks,
Sergey

abacus07 · 12-24-2010, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by FullertonImages

Like I said earlier, I guess it depends who's shooting. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would gladly give up the f/2.8 to have a smaller package. And in a perfect world, they would make both lenses and we could all be happy. I would probably even want both. But from my perspective as a pro, I would gladly take a hit on size, weight and cost to have the capabilities of f/2.8 at that focal length. That's not to say that I wouldn't sometimes want a smaller version. That's why there is the Canon 16-35/2.8, and 17-40/4; and I know quite a few people have both. But all in all, if I could only have one, I would rather have the faster, bigger lens. But something I've found from my experience shooting professionally, and I found the same thing to be true when I was an auto mechanic, is that 90% of the jobs can be pulled off with 10% of the skills, knowledge and equipment that there is. Being pro is about having the other 90% of the skills, knowledge and equipment to pull off the other 10% of the jobs. I think that's most likely true of just about anything.

I haven't said that there aren't a few people that would trade size/weight for a bigger aperture. But the overall market for this lens which does consist of those that you earlier named leans heavily to keeping this lens as close to a pound as possible.

For the pros that need a 2.8 aperture wide angle there is the DA 14mm/2.8. As far as your Canon argument Pentax is selling the DA* 16-50/2.8 and the DA 16-45.

FullertonImages · 12-25-2010, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by abacus07

I haven't said that there aren't a few people that would trade size/weight for a bigger aperture. But the overall market for this lens which does consist of those that you earlier named leans heavily to keeping this lens as close to a pound as possible.

For the pros that need a 2.8 aperture wide angle there is the DA 14mm/2.8. As far as your Canon argument Pentax is selling the DA* 16-50/2.8 and the DA 16-45.

I pretty much agree with all of that. I realize that what I want doesn't represent the majority, and probably wouldn't be the best bet for Pentax to make. But then again I think maybe it would. Pentax has a pretty good entry level lens lineup. I think they really need to focus on lenses that are 'pro', and I mean that in every shallow sense of the word. Pentax lacks a professional presence in the market, and not a lot of people reckognize their ability as a system to be used in professional work. The K-5 is turning lots of heads, and I think a lot of people will be taking closer looks at the system. But I feel like a lot of people will take a second look, and feel like the lens line up isn't 'pro' enough for them. I think the next few lenses that Pentax releases really need to be pro grade lenses that fill in certain gaps in the lens map. The more Pentax can bring on pros, the more credibility the brand will get. The bottom line is that everyone wants an upgrade path. Regardless of whether a lens needs to be fast with how high modern ISOs are, or whether wide lenses should have f/2.8 since most wide shots are at f/8 anyways, or whether weight and size are more important than lens speed, the truth of the matter is that the 14-24/2.8 is a beg, heavy sexy piece of glass, and so many entry level Nikon users straight up lust after that lens. And it gives them lots of brand pride and brand loyalty to know that there is this bad ass beast of a lens that they could theoretically upgrade to. Even if the truth is that they'll never ever upgrade to a lens like that.

I think it would be a wise move for Pentax to release a few lenses in the near future at, that anyone would look at and say, 'yeah, that's some professional $#!+, right there.' It might not translate into more revenue as far as immediate lens sales goes, but I think it would be better for long term brand growth.

FullertonImages · 12-25-2010, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Kammerer

Ben,

Would you mind clarifying this a bit, for educational purposes? For example, would you point to one or two images from your (quite amazing) blog/web site that were shot with a wide-angle lens, and would have been improved if you had a f/2.8?

Thanks,
Sergey

Hmmm... Yes, I will try. In looking, I realize that wide angle/narow DOF isn't even something I even do too much. I guess it's just something I appreciate in concept and want to explore more. I think, like a lot of people, I tend to just fall back on the wide-angle, f/8, hyperfocal focus and everything will be in focus approach. And it works, and it's safe. But I feel like maybe it's creatively limiting, and that there are more unique images out there to be made with wide angle narrow DOF approaches.

Here are a few wide angle examples that I think would be better with a narrower DOF and more subject isolation.

I also do a fair amount of event coverage where it's more a matter of just wanting to let a little more light in. Especially with such wide lenses like at 12mm, you can get away with a lot at f/2.8. Pretty much as long as what you're focusing on is more than 6-10 feet away, everything will be reasonably in focus.

I'm just all about having maximum creative capabilities available. and having f/2.8 available certainly increases the possibilities for different looks.

dankoBanana · 12-25-2010, 03:22 AM

hahahaha @ Kruder on picture 3

he did good that day

btw do you also climb?

**Kammerer** · 12-25-2010, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by FullertonImages

Here are a few wide angle examples that I think would be better with a narrower DOF and more subject isolation.

I also do a fair amount of event coverage where it's more a matter of just wanting to let a little more light in. Especially with such wide lenses like at 12mm, you can get away with a lot at f/2.8. Pretty much as long as what you're focusing on is more than 6-10 feet away, everything will be reasonably in focus.

I'm just all about having maximum creative capabilities available. and having f/2.8 available certainly increases the possibilities for different looks.

Thanks much for sharing your thoughts, Ben. Very helpful.

FullertonImages · 12-25-2010, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by dankoBanana

hahahaha @ Kruder on picture 3

he did good that day

btw do you also climb?

Jernej did great all comp. I was secretly pulling for him. But Daniel did great and deserved the win. They're both great climbers.

I do climb, but not as often as I'd like...

FullertonImages · 12-25-2010, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Kammerer

Thanks much for sharing your thoughts, Ben. Very helpful.

No problem. Glad you found it helpful!

nicolas1970i · 12-26-2010, 01:12 PM

Is it known if it will include fluoride glass or something similar, like the Sigma 8-16?

eurostar · 12-27-2010, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by nicolas1970i

Is it known if it will include fluoride glass or something similar, like the Sigma 8-16?

It's just a patent, you are talking as if it is coming soon. It could come, but it could be just an exercise in design.

nicolas1970i · 12-27-2010, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by eurostar

It's just a patent, you are talking as if it is coming soon. It could come, but it could be just an exercise in design.

OK, I'll rephrase my question then

:
Does the patent specify if some fluoride glass elements will be included?

Caat · 01-02-2011, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by nicolas1970i

Is it known if it will include fluoride glass or something similar, like the Sigma 8-16?

The new glass type in the Sigma 8-16 was co-developed with Hoya so I would expect that Pentax would have access to it if they wanted to use it - either in the realisation of this patent or in other future lenses.

Cambo · 01-03-2011, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by calculator01

This is fantastic news.

I would like to see a f2.8 though...

about this...

Holding out for the 2.8 'Pro' version...

Cameron

FullertonImages · 01-03-2011, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Cambo

about this...

Holding out for the 2.8 'Pro' version...

Cameron

I think Pentax could make that lens smaller, especially if it is only an APS-c lens.

01-03-2011, 01:51 PM	#89
Cambo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,016	That's what I said.... Originally posted by calculator01 This is fantastic news. I would like to see a f2.8 though... about this... Holding out for the 2.8 'Pro' version... Cameron

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax Medium Format Patent	ariahspam	Pentax News and Rumors	42	12-12-2008 01:39 PM
Anyone notice the marco ring flash patent from Pentax?	Red	Pentax News and Rumors	21	09-12-2008 02:41 AM
Canon files for iris ID patent	Duck Dodgers	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	02-12-2008 08:20 PM
Pentax Next New Model ? Patent Jan-07 in US	BigMac	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	06-14-2007 01:30 PM
PMA: DA*200/300 SDM, 35mm Macro ltd, New Flash!	nosnoop	Pentax News and Rumors	38	02-28-2007 12:22 PM

12-24-2010, 10:18 AM - 1 Like	#76
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	Originally posted by abacus07 I don't think there is one person that wouldn't want a bigger aperture in a lens if there weren't other tradeoffs. But the end users that you described usually want something to be as portable as possible. And in a lot cases they are also outdoors where they are stopping it down anyway. Like I said earlier, I guess it depends who's shooting. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would gladly give up the f/2.8 to have a smaller package. And in a perfect world, they would make both lenses and we could all be happy. I would probably even want both. But from my perspective as a pro, I would gladly take a hit on size, weight and cost to have the capabilities of f/2.8 at that focal length. That's not to say that I wouldn't sometimes want a smaller version. That's why there is the Canon 16-35/2.8, and 17-40/4; and I know quite a few people have both. But all in all, if I could only have one, I would rather have the faster, bigger lens. But something I've found from my experience shooting professionally, and I found the same thing to be true when I was an auto mechanic, is that 90% of the jobs can be pulled off with 10% of the skills, knowledge and equipment that there is. Being pro is about having the other 90% of the skills, knowledge and equipment to pull off the other 10% of the jobs. I think that's most likely true of just about anything.

12-24-2010, 11:45 AM	#77
Kammerer Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Hampton Roads Photos: Albums Posts: 367	Originally posted by FullertonImages But from my perspective as a pro, I would gladly take a hit on size, weight and cost to have the capabilities of f/2.8 at that focal length. Ben, Would you mind clarifying this a bit, for educational purposes? For example, would you point to one or two images from your (quite amazing) blog/web site that were shot with a wide-angle lens, and would have been improved if you had a f/2.8? Thanks, Sergey

12-24-2010, 05:01 PM	#78
abacus07 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Taiwan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,075	Originally posted by FullertonImages Like I said earlier, I guess it depends who's shooting. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would gladly give up the f/2.8 to have a smaller package. And in a perfect world, they would make both lenses and we could all be happy. I would probably even want both. But from my perspective as a pro, I would gladly take a hit on size, weight and cost to have the capabilities of f/2.8 at that focal length. That's not to say that I wouldn't sometimes want a smaller version. That's why there is the Canon 16-35/2.8, and 17-40/4; and I know quite a few people have both. But all in all, if I could only have one, I would rather have the faster, bigger lens. But something I've found from my experience shooting professionally, and I found the same thing to be true when I was an auto mechanic, is that 90% of the jobs can be pulled off with 10% of the skills, knowledge and equipment that there is. Being pro is about having the other 90% of the skills, knowledge and equipment to pull off the other 10% of the jobs. I think that's most likely true of just about anything. I haven't said that there aren't a few people that would trade size/weight for a bigger aperture. But the overall market for this lens which does consist of those that you earlier named leans heavily to keeping this lens as close to a pound as possible. For the pros that need a 2.8 aperture wide angle there is the DA 14mm/2.8. As far as your Canon argument Pentax is selling the DA* 16-50/2.8 and the DA 16-45.

12-25-2010, 01:03 AM	#79
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	Originally posted by abacus07 I haven't said that there aren't a few people that would trade size/weight for a bigger aperture. But the overall market for this lens which does consist of those that you earlier named leans heavily to keeping this lens as close to a pound as possible. For the pros that need a 2.8 aperture wide angle there is the DA 14mm/2.8. As far as your Canon argument Pentax is selling the DA* 16-50/2.8 and the DA 16-45. I pretty much agree with all of that. I realize that what I want doesn't represent the majority, and probably wouldn't be the best bet for Pentax to make. But then again I think maybe it would. Pentax has a pretty good entry level lens lineup. I think they really need to focus on lenses that are 'pro', and I mean that in every shallow sense of the word. Pentax lacks a professional presence in the market, and not a lot of people reckognize their ability as a system to be used in professional work. The K-5 is turning lots of heads, and I think a lot of people will be taking closer looks at the system. But I feel like a lot of people will take a second look, and feel like the lens line up isn't 'pro' enough for them. I think the next few lenses that Pentax releases really need to be pro grade lenses that fill in certain gaps in the lens map. The more Pentax can bring on pros, the more credibility the brand will get. The bottom line is that everyone wants an upgrade path. Regardless of whether a lens needs to be fast with how high modern ISOs are, or whether wide lenses should have f/2.8 since most wide shots are at f/8 anyways, or whether weight and size are more important than lens speed, the truth of the matter is that the 14-24/2.8 is a beg, heavy sexy piece of glass, and so many entry level Nikon users straight up lust after that lens. And it gives them lots of brand pride and brand loyalty to know that there is this bad ass beast of a lens that they could theoretically upgrade to. Even if the truth is that they'll never ever upgrade to a lens like that. I think it would be a wise move for Pentax to release a few lenses in the near future at, that anyone would look at and say, 'yeah, that's some professional $#!+, right there.' It might not translate into more revenue as far as immediate lens sales goes, but I think it would be better for long term brand growth.

12-25-2010, 01:36 AM	#80
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	Originally posted by Kammerer Ben, Would you mind clarifying this a bit, for educational purposes? For example, would you point to one or two images from your (quite amazing) blog/web site that were shot with a wide-angle lens, and would have been improved if you had a f/2.8? Thanks, Sergey Hmmm... Yes, I will try. In looking, I realize that wide angle/narow DOF isn't even something I even do too much. I guess it's just something I appreciate in concept and want to explore more. I think, like a lot of people, I tend to just fall back on the wide-angle, f/8, hyperfocal focus and everything will be in focus approach. And it works, and it's safe. But I feel like maybe it's creatively limiting, and that there are more unique images out there to be made with wide angle narrow DOF approaches. Here are a few wide angle examples that I think would be better with a narrower DOF and more subject isolation. I also do a fair amount of event coverage where it's more a matter of just wanting to let a little more light in. Especially with such wide lenses like at 12mm, you can get away with a lot at f/2.8. Pretty much as long as what you're focusing on is more than 6-10 feet away, everything will be reasonably in focus. I'm just all about having maximum creative capabilities available. and having f/2.8 available certainly increases the possibilities for different looks.

12-25-2010, 03:22 AM	#81
dankoBanana Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Zagreb, Croatia Posts: 533	hahahaha @ Kruder on picture 3 he did good that day btw do you also climb?

12-25-2010, 01:39 PM	#82
Kammerer Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Hampton Roads Photos: Albums Posts: 367	Originally posted by FullertonImages Here are a few wide angle examples that I think would be better with a narrower DOF and more subject isolation. I also do a fair amount of event coverage where it's more a matter of just wanting to let a little more light in. Especially with such wide lenses like at 12mm, you can get away with a lot at f/2.8. Pretty much as long as what you're focusing on is more than 6-10 feet away, everything will be reasonably in focus. I'm just all about having maximum creative capabilities available. and having f/2.8 available certainly increases the possibilities for different looks. Thanks much for sharing your thoughts, Ben. Very helpful.

12-25-2010, 03:42 PM	#83
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	Originally posted by dankoBanana hahahaha @ Kruder on picture 3 he did good that day btw do you also climb? Jernej did great all comp. I was secretly pulling for him. But Daniel did great and deserved the win. They're both great climbers. I do climb, but not as often as I'd like...

12-25-2010, 04:31 PM	#84
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	Originally posted by Kammerer Thanks much for sharing your thoughts, Ben. Very helpful. No problem. Glad you found it helpful!

12-26-2010, 01:12 PM	#85
nicolas1970i Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Paris Posts: 180	Is it known if it will include fluoride glass or something similar, like the Sigma 8-16?

12-27-2010, 01:02 AM	#86
eurostar Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albareto, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 819	Originally posted by nicolas1970i Is it known if it will include fluoride glass or something similar, like the Sigma 8-16? It's just a patent, you are talking as if it is coming soon. It could come, but it could be just an exercise in design.

12-27-2010, 04:30 AM	#87
nicolas1970i Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Paris Posts: 180	Originally posted by eurostar It's just a patent, you are talking as if it is coming soon. It could come, but it could be just an exercise in design. OK, I'll rephrase my question then : Does the patent specify if some fluoride glass elements will be included?

01-02-2011, 05:56 PM	#88
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by nicolas1970i Is it known if it will include fluoride glass or something similar, like the Sigma 8-16? The new glass type in the Sigma 8-16 was co-developed with Hoya so I would expect that Pentax would have access to it if they wanted to use it - either in the realisation of this patent or in other future lenses.

01-03-2011, 07:00 PM	#90
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	Originally posted by Cambo about this... Holding out for the 2.8 'Pro' version... Cameron I think Pentax could make that lens smaller, especially if it is only an APS-c lens.