[Uluru]

Or the other way around: developed by Pentax as a Hoya division but first used by Hoya for their own purposes and then transferred to Ricoh as a component of the Pentax Cameras and Optics business.

It could be. But considering that Pentax part did not have resources to develop even new lenses for its system to use new coating ... hmmm ...

---

Last edited by Uluru; 09-04-2013 at 05:18 AM.

[Kunzite]

This HD coating was most probably developed by Hoya for its own optics division, and was passed down to Pentax Cameras and Optics to use it, or modify the formula for certain applications. As such, it was bought into Ricoh, and now officially started to be utilised.

Since when was Hoya such an expert in coatings so they would have something, anything to give to Pentax? They didn't even made their "own" filters. Naturally, Pentax was the one to develop the ABC and the HD coatings - and that's what they're claiming themselves:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/9/prweb9882828.htm

Pentax' R&D department wasn't reduced to zero, so they could do something even when no new DSLR product could be launched.

[repaap]

Hmm. Interesting. You know what is also really interesting. HD Da 15/4 is cheaper than original one! I guess that someone mentioned this allready, but this might be a sign for me. I guess these lenses goes well together with K-5IIs. Now, My K-7 needs an replacement...I need bigger bank account...

[monochrome]

One supposes at Pentax pre-coporate disruptions optical engineers sourced in the lenses shop might have worjked on projects in some of the acquired medical imaging companies or in eyeglass lenses.

I wonder how many Pentax optical engineers, in addition to those simply made redundant and let go, were transferred to other Hoya divisions and retained by Hoya when Pentax was sold to Ricoh? It is entirely possible the cupboard of skilled engineers was quite bare by the time Ricoh rode into town. $125,000,000 isn't really very much money for a brand, some maunfacturing plants and a portfolio of patents. Maybe it represents how hollow Pentax really was, and why Pentax must only be a brand now becasue there really isn't enough left to be anything else..

[davidsladek]

Here is a comparison from SRSMicrosystems:
smc HD
15 £579 £589
21 £459 £589
35 £369 £639
40 £349 £439
70 £459 £639

The 35 Macro is almost a double!

[Uluru]

Since when was Hoya such an expert in coatings so they would have something, anything to give to Pentax? They didn't even made their "own" filters. Naturally, Pentax was the one to develop the ABC ....

See the last link in particular:

Custom Coating Design from HOYA OPTICS: Leading supplier of advanced optical materials & components

Hi-Vision LongLife

Aero Bright Coating by HOYA CORPORATION - 1293712

[mecrox]

Here is a comparison from SRSMicrosystems:
smc HD
15 £579 £589
21 £459 £589
35 £369 £639
40 £349 £439
70 £459 £639

The 35 Macro is almost a double!

It's interesting that they have pitched the new level above the Fuji X-series ones since the X series appears to have similar build quality and attention to detail and must be a prominent competitor for the kind of buyer who is attracted to Pentax?

It's hard to work out what they are trying to do without a new body to which to attach these lenses. Pro gear? But they aren't. Leica mark II? But they aren't.

FWIW, a Nikon D600 and two of the best professional-level lenses Nikon make (24-70mm and 70-200mm f2.8) will not cost a great deal more than a K5IIs (or it's likely successor) and a set of the Limiteds. And both are up against some very stiff competition: an iPhone 5, a nice MacBook Pro with retina display and a Fuji X100s will together run to roughly the same as a set of Limiteds, for example. Add on a K series body and you can throw in an iPad or two. Few people have this kind of money anyway but for those who do it's becoming a bit hard to see where Pentax fits in with a compelling offer even when put up against world-class firms known for asking top dollar.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 09-04-2013 at 08:06 AM.

[Kunzite]

Uluru: In 2009 Pentax was already dissolved into Hoya.
Developing coatings and surpassing Pentax at it are two different things.

[shiner]

Somebody implied that Canon pretty much owns the red rings, but there are other red ringed lenses; besides, it's a way nicer red than Canon...

[Uluru]

Uluru: In 2009 Pentax was already dissolved into Hoya.
Developing coatings and surpassing Pentax at it are two different things.

Ah, dear God, no. What I wanted to show is that if we use grey substance for a minute, we could notice all new revolutionary 'Pentax coatings' are coming from the 2008-2010, when Pentax was a subsidiary of one of the world's largest optics and protective coatings institution, one that fills up endless patents yearly and makes its living by making coatings up to customer's desires (links provided above). Like a big perfume factory at the disposal of Lady Gaga. Which is interesting, right?, considering that merely 2 years before, in 2006, none of Pentax's research was mentioned in a cross-industry research papers on optics protective coatings.
Now one would say all that happened miraculously and it is 'impossible that Pentax Cameras and Optics could have thrived under the impostor Hoya'?

[Kunzite]

That's conjecture and speculation, and I'd appreciate if you'll stop using a condescending tone. What are you trying to say, anyway, that Pentax - known for its SMC and ghostless SMC well before the digital age - is less suited than Hoya for developing advanced coating?

The first Pentax lens using ABC was launched in 2008, 6 months after Pentax Corporation was dissolved into Hoya. Before the takeover, Pentax was researching silica aerogel nano-coatings (ABC being such a thing), see for example patent US 20060239886 A1. Also check patent US 8029871 B2, applied by Pentax Corporation but granted under Hoya Corporation. How many Hoya patents you saw were actually made by Pentax?
Your trademark registration from 2009 (again, when Pentax Corporation was already dissolved into Hoya) means nothing.

[Jonathan Mac]

Well, as the DA 70mm seems to have leapt to being the most expensive DA ltd now, I think it's likely that the price of the new version will never be lower than the current one. As supplies of the current version dry up and the new, expensive version becomes the only ones available new, prices of second hand versions will rise in response to the new, higher price.

So I've decided to get a copy of the DA 70 now, while I can still afford it and while I can still easily get the version that matches the 35 and 21 I already have.

Thus I complete my tri of DA limited lenses.

[Kunzite]

It's a very good lens, you'll like it.

[Aristophanes]

Well, as the DA 70mm seems to have leapt to being the most expensive DA ltd now, I think it's likely that the price of the new version will never be lower than the current one. As supplies of the current version dry up and the new, expensive version becomes the only ones available new, prices of second hand versions will rise in response to the new, higher price.

So I've decided to get a copy of the DA 70 now, while I can still afford it and while I can still easily get the version that matches the 35 and 21 I already have.

Thus I complete my tri of DA limited lenses.

More likely prices will fall on the newer ones as they are unrealistic.

[Ash]

Corporations never lie?! True, he said: "Pentax will always exist on the product level." Now, what does that mean exactly? On the product level could just well be that the pentax products that have been produced up until now will always remain Pentax.

Sir, give it up. Your persistent expression of pessimism is an unbecoming, not to mention frustratingly tiresome, exercise in futility.

These HD lenses are yet to prove themselves, both in performance and in price, but they do look promising for new Ltd lens buyers. Existing DA Ltd owners may not be as excited, but it's hard to improve on such legendary lenses.


Ash.