Ricoh 18.3/2.5 and 33/2.5 macro for K-mount? Do you want it?

ogl · 07-12-2011, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Even if Ricoh made those standalone, retrofocus and for K-mount, I wouldn't want them. 18mm f/2.5? 15mm f/4 ltd is wider, and generally not used for any subject isolation anyway. 33 2.5? What's wrong with the DA 35 f/2.4 or DA 35 2.8ltd?

18.6/2.5 could fill gap between DA15 and DA21.

It's classical 28 mm (equiv.of 35 mm).

RioRico · 07-12-2011, 06:10 AM

Some seem to miss the point. Non-retrofocus lenses that short won't work on a PK SLR, period. (Except for extreme close-ups only.) Short lenses with short registers and no RF elements must sit very close to the frame, too close when there's a swinging mirror. Nice-to-have focal lengths are irrelevant if they won't fit.

Short fast lenses apparently aren't hard to build -- for short-register systems. I have a nice little 15-25/1.2 zoom that only cost me one buck. WOW! And I could maybe cobble it to a Q-mount. But to see anything on a PK camera, I must stick it right against the mirror, which then can't move. I *could* rig a PK adapter, just cut a hole in a body cap, but I'd have to leave the mirror locked up, which I can't do with my K20D. Bother.

These Ricoh lenses, even separated from their sensor modules, will never fit on PK SLRs. Forget it.

Urkeldaedalus · 07-12-2011, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Even if Ricoh made those standalone, retrofocus and for K-mount, I wouldn't want them. 18mm f/2.5? 15mm f/4 ltd is wider, and generally not used for any subject isolation anyway. 33 2.5? What's wrong with the DA 35 f/2.4 or DA 35 2.8ltd?

If your point is that they're pancakes, that's because they weren't made for k-mount.

So, no. Those focal lengths and apertures wouldn't interest me, I guess.

Good point on the macros. Actually the DA35 to me is a much better macro lens (and arguably better all around lens) than the Ricoh 33 mm from what I've seen. The Ricoh does have super creamy bokeh, though, and is no slouch optically. The DA35 is just that good.

In contrast, I think the 18 mm Ricoh is a lot different than the 15 mm, or at least more than you'd think from just a 3 mm difference. I'd rate the 15 mm as much better on things like distortion and flare resistance, it's the perfect walk around outside lens, while the 18 mm Ricoh has much better bokeh, is sharp at f/2.5 and can indeed be used for subject isolation -- a good indoors wide. I'd see the 18 mm as more of a threat to the 21 mm limited than the 15 mm limited.

It's a moot point, though, since as others pointed out there's technical and practical reasons it won't happen. It is a good thought experiment though.

The nice thing is that since we're even having this conversation it shows that the two companies have a history of making nice primes. I'd be most interested to see what they can come up with together that's new rather than recycling old stuff. Say a new, portable 135 mm lens might be nice

Do it RICOHTAX!

Blue · 07-12-2011, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by eurostar

I think a 18/2,5 would be a great addition to the Pentax line-up, while a 33 macro is basically a duplicate of the 35 macro limited.

That said, obviously the GXR lenses have not enough clearance to be adapted to K-reflex. But on a Pentax APS-C mirrorless they could work...

Or to put it in context, the GXR registry distance is shorter.

rawr · 07-12-2011, 03:22 PM

Speaking of GXR, here's a good field review of the GXR Camera with 28 and 50mm Lens-Sensor Modules:
Review: Ricoh GXR Camera with 28 and 50mm Lens-Sensor Modules

Makes the system sound appealing. An APS-C K-mount module to let me use something like a M28 or DA40 on GXR would be cool.

**TAP** · 07-12-2011, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

I'm sorry, TAP - my message was directed entirely at ogl (for a reason) but of course, it wasn't nice of me - because you all could read it.
What is an aspheric lens, you're asking. I'm quite bad at explaining things, so I'll link at the wiki page (which has more information and explanatory images)
Aspheric lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In short, it's a lens whose surface is not spherical; not the "aspherical lens: 1 element, two surfaces" ogl said it is.

No worries Kunzite, and thank you for your response

zapp · 07-13-2011, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Ricoh 18.3/2.5 and 33/2.5 macro are sharp from wide-open.
Compact (almost pancake) and very good optically.
Do you want such lenses for K-mount? How do you think - is it real?

There is a good chance that we will see a merging of lens designs... in the near future, but honestly the 18 is stuck between 15 and 21 in Pentax land, the 33 macro doubles the Pentax 35. New ideas are needed! There are other gaps in the Pentax line up and a need to update the type of AF used (SDM, ...).

Blue · 07-13-2011, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by zapp

There is a good chance that we will see a merging of lens designs... in the near future, but honestly the 18 is stuck between 15 and 21 in Pentax land, the 33 macro doubles the Pentax 35. New ideas are needed! There are other gaps in the Pentax line up and a need to update the type of AF used (SDM, ...).

what?

Kunzite · 07-13-2011, 06:53 AM

I take it as "they have similar focal lengths and max apertures, and they're both macro''
There are lots of areas which could and should be "merged".

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Ricoh GXR is no K-mount (yet?)	thibs	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	7	11-11-2009 07:53 PM
Letsgodigital: Ricoh K-mount camera!	amonsul	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	25	10-29-2009 10:30 AM
Ricoh ready to release a K-mount compact camera?	amonsul	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	20	09-07-2009 01:03 PM
Ricoh and the K mount	bikee4	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	6	09-03-2009 09:23 PM

07-12-2011, 01:44 AM	#16
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by jsherman999 Even if Ricoh made those standalone, retrofocus and for K-mount, I wouldn't want them. 18mm f/2.5? 15mm f/4 ltd is wider, and generally not used for any subject isolation anyway. 33 2.5? What's wrong with the DA 35 f/2.4 or DA 35 2.8ltd? 18.6/2.5 could fill gap between DA15 and DA21. It's classical 28 mm (equiv.of 35 mm).

07-12-2011, 06:10 AM	#17
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Some seem to miss the point. Non-retrofocus lenses that short won't work on a PK SLR, period. (Except for extreme close-ups only.) Short lenses with short registers and no RF elements must sit very close to the frame, too close when there's a swinging mirror. Nice-to-have focal lengths are irrelevant if they won't fit. Short fast lenses apparently aren't hard to build -- for short-register systems. I have a nice little 15-25/1.2 zoom that only cost me one buck. WOW! And I could maybe cobble it to a Q-mount. But to see anything on a PK camera, I must stick it right against the mirror, which then can't move. I could rig a PK adapter, just cut a hole in a body cap, but I'd have to leave the mirror locked up, which I can't do with my K20D. Bother. These Ricoh lenses, even separated from their sensor modules, will never fit on PK SLRs. Forget it.

07-12-2011, 06:44 AM	#18
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	Originally posted by jsherman999 Even if Ricoh made those standalone, retrofocus and for K-mount, I wouldn't want them. 18mm f/2.5? 15mm f/4 ltd is wider, and generally not used for any subject isolation anyway. 33 2.5? What's wrong with the DA 35 f/2.4 or DA 35 2.8ltd? If your point is that they're pancakes, that's because they weren't made for k-mount. So, no. Those focal lengths and apertures wouldn't interest me, I guess. Good point on the macros. Actually the DA35 to me is a much better macro lens (and arguably better all around lens) than the Ricoh 33 mm from what I've seen. The Ricoh does have super creamy bokeh, though, and is no slouch optically. The DA35 is just that good. In contrast, I think the 18 mm Ricoh is a lot different than the 15 mm, or at least more than you'd think from just a 3 mm difference. I'd rate the 15 mm as much better on things like distortion and flare resistance, it's the perfect walk around outside lens, while the 18 mm Ricoh has much better bokeh, is sharp at f/2.5 and can indeed be used for subject isolation -- a good indoors wide. I'd see the 18 mm as more of a threat to the 21 mm limited than the 15 mm limited. It's a moot point, though, since as others pointed out there's technical and practical reasons it won't happen. It is a good thought experiment though. The nice thing is that since we're even having this conversation it shows that the two companies have a history of making nice primes. I'd be most interested to see what they can come up with together that's new rather than recycling old stuff. Say a new, portable 135 mm lens might be nice Do it RICOHTAX!

07-12-2011, 07:25 AM	#19
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by eurostar I think a 18/2,5 would be a great addition to the Pentax line-up, while a 33 macro is basically a duplicate of the 35 macro limited. That said, obviously the GXR lenses have not enough clearance to be adapted to K-reflex. But on a Pentax APS-C mirrorless they could work... Or to put it in context, the GXR registry distance is shorter.

07-12-2011, 03:22 PM	#20
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Speaking of GXR, here's a good field review of the GXR Camera with 28 and 50mm Lens-Sensor Modules: Review: Ricoh GXR Camera with 28 and 50mm Lens-Sensor Modules Makes the system sound appealing. An APS-C K-mount module to let me use something like a M28 or DA40 on GXR would be cool.

07-12-2011, 04:49 PM	#21
TAP Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 121	Originally posted by Kunzite I'm sorry, TAP - my message was directed entirely at ogl (for a reason) but of course, it wasn't nice of me - because you all could read it. What is an aspheric lens, you're asking. I'm quite bad at explaining things, so I'll link at the wiki page (which has more information and explanatory images) Aspheric lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In short, it's a lens whose surface is not spherical; not the "aspherical lens: 1 element, two surfaces" ogl said it is. No worries Kunzite, and thank you for your response

07-13-2011, 05:36 AM	#22
zapp Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,385	Originally posted by ogl Ricoh 18.3/2.5 and 33/2.5 macro are sharp from wide-open. Compact (almost pancake) and very good optically. Do you want such lenses for K-mount? How do you think - is it real? There is a good chance that we will see a merging of lens designs... in the near future, but honestly the 18 is stuck between 15 and 21 in Pentax land, the 33 macro doubles the Pentax 35. New ideas are needed! There are other gaps in the Pentax line up and a need to update the type of AF used (SDM, ...).

07-13-2011, 06:32 AM	#23
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by zapp There is a good chance that we will see a merging of lens designs... in the near future, but honestly the 18 is stuck between 15 and 21 in Pentax land, the 33 macro doubles the Pentax 35. New ideas are needed! There are other gaps in the Pentax line up and a need to update the type of AF used (SDM, ...). what?

07-13-2011, 06:53 AM	#24
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	I take it as "they have similar focal lengths and max apertures, and they're both macro'' There are lots of areas which could and should be "merged".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search