[snake]

That's harsh, given that Ricoh Imaging barely started working towards their vision.

Which you and I are both vocal about, Alex. Stuff we're seeing now is still from the Pentax pipeline and, in contrast to Andi, I can't imagine moving forward that we won't see such a lens. However, the fact that we don't see one now, in this era of a resurgence in popularity of the 35mm focal length, is a bad sign of what once was.

[Andi Lo]

That's harsh, given that Ricoh Imaging barely started working towards their vision - and before that, Pentax was unable to implement theirs, thanks to Hoya.

Ah yes, that's the thing, I disagree that they have scizophernic vision, in fact I think it's clearer than ever before. Imho their vision is that compact, WR, high quality is more desirable so there's no problem making the 24mm a slow zoom lens, as long as it fits the vision, and I think this is actually a good sign.

Rather than playing a game where they have to play catch up (wide aperture) they seem to have chosen a different path, that many here seem to like. My personal opinion is that you should focus on your strongest suit, which imho with pentax has been compact and high quality.

Would a 24mm/1.4 keep people with Pentax and away from a Fuji, or a Canon/Nikon/Sony FF with a 35mm? Personally I dont think so, but this slow DA WR just might. High quality compact WR lens in other mounts are not very plentiful, and with this Ricoh has created a unique selling point for the system.

Btw i dont like the hood and I hope it's not final Maybe mounting a shaved 21mm hood on it will be a good idea.

[gazonk]

I say that is a rather small and short lens hood for a lens of this focal range.

So… maybe it's FF compatible?

[D1N0]

So… maybe it's FF compatible?

The Hood? Absolutely

[thibs]

Well not dirty, but the K-50/K-500 are about giving the same options, only not the dirty way, but offering a cheaper model to it.

K50/500 do not break any compatibility so I don't see your point here.

They play the same trick a lot of others do in our industrial time: you produce the same and castrate late in the production process. I hate it. But on a strict economical PoV it makes sense (alas).

Nikon did play dirty although one could argue that now, they just pursue the strategy they did before and that changing it would not be logical. Right.
But when they introduced the D40, they removed the screw motor and at that time there was a LOT of screwdriven lenses in Nikon catalog begining with most traditional primes (e.g. AF-D 50/1.4). If the situation is better now, it gave a excuse for Nikon to change all their lenses range with AF-S, not always with optical changes, but with better suiting Nikon prices.

At that time, yes it was dirty. Just as those cams not metering with older MF lenses (annoying but maybe acceptable) just as Pentax crippling their own Kmount (same) as Pentax crippling too much their mount (MZ50/MZ60) as not to work even with A lenses.

If Nikon waited for their catalog to be updated and 5-10 years later stopped supporting old lenses, OK it sucks but I can understand to a point.
Selling a body incompatible with a big chunk of your catalog is a totally different story.

[monochrome]

Rather than playing a game where they have to play catch up (wide aperture) they seem to have chosen a different path, that many here seem to like. My personal opinion is that you should focus on your strongest suit, which imho with pentax has been compact and high quality.

As I hear it, the Strategic Value Proposition (long term Vision) is to be THE camera company offering a unique combination of: high-quality build spec's across the entire line, attention to ergonomic thoughtfulness and detail, exceptionally creative engineering, competitive, feature-rich products in a small package, image quality. All at a fair price given the feature set. There are tactical features to implement that Vision such as IBIS, WR, patented HD coating process, manufacturing process implementation, eventually marketing signatures - much we have yet to see.

The Strategic Value Proposition is not price alone, nor is it meeting every conceivable customer need and want. Ricoh believes there is room for a third major camera company and it will be Pentax (did you read that? - PENTAX). The above seems to be the path they have chosen to achieve the Vision.

Ricoh has a demonstrated history of disciplined growth by continually and incrementally improving its products, not by introducing and then abandoning ideas. They think, act and persist long-term, a rather conservative notion that requires time to work. But when compunding growth over the long term, the last double is the big double.

Those who long for the old Pentax way (random, brilliant one-off introductions followed by long periods of average products, stagnation and disappointment) are likely to be bored and disappointed by Ricoh. Those who seek their narrow needs from Pentax are likely to be disappointed if those needs aren't aligned with Ricoh's path. Those who realize Pentax is a distinct and meaningful part of the optical products industry, used by discerning photographers, will choose to use or not use Pentax products for the right reasons.

[Kunzite]

Which you and I are both vocal about, Alex. Stuff we're seeing now is still from the Pentax pipeline and, in contrast to Andi, I can't imagine moving forward that we won't see such a lens. However, the fact that we don't see one now, in this era of a resurgence in popularity of the 35mm focal length, is a bad sign of what once was.

I am sure we'll see larger, faster lenses and that's not sign of schizophrenic direction - but trying to have a well diversified lens range. I still believe they'll try to make them smaller than the competition; but avoid them altogether? Nope.
This is consistent with 2007-2008 years, where they had both DA Limiteds and larger DA*; but done on a Ricoh Imaging-scale (instead of a Pentax-under-Hoya-control one). There really isn't any point in not having both, as this would limit their potential market.

I cannot say if we'll see such fast primes, though.

[thibs]

I am sure we'll see larger, faster lenses and that's not sign of schizophrenic direction - but trying to have a well diversified lens range. I still believe they'll try to make them smaller than the competition; but avoid them altogether? Nope.
This is consistent with 2007-2008 years, where they had both DA Limiteds and larger DA*; but done on a Ricoh Imaging-scale (instead of a Pentax-under-Hoya-control one). There really isn't any point in not having both, as this would limit their potential market.

I cannot say if we'll see such fast primes, though.

Also, the compact high IQ strategy may be limited (pun intended of course) to APS-C/DA lenses.
FA are more toward IQ/speed. FF, if ever, may coma with updated DFA Limited completed by others but in the same line as current FA Limited.

This would be a very acceptable marketing distinction (among other of course) between APS and FF.

[Kunzite]

I rather see a distinction being made between Limiteds and DFA* lenses. But, we'll see...

[Asahiflex]

I say that is a rather small and short lens hood for a lens of this focal range.

I say that this could be fullframe indeed, otherwise such a hood makes no sense at all. It looks a bit like my Sigma 21-35mm f/3.5-4.2 in diameter size (apart from the front element size which is bigger on the sigma).

I could be wrong though.

[thibs]

I say that this could be fullframe indeed, otherwise such a hood makes no sense at all. It looks a bit like my Sigma 21-35mm f/3.5-4.2 in diameter size (apart from the front element size which is bigger on the sigma).

I could be wrong though.

Anyway it makes a lot less sense as an FF lens IMO. Still nice if it worked of course, don't get me wrong...

[Asahiflex]

Anyway it makes a lot less sense as an FF lens IMO. Still nice if it worked of course, don't get me wrong...

Of course I'm wrong but that hood is rather strange!

[Andi Lo]

Anyway it makes a lot less sense as an FF lens IMO. Still nice if it worked of course, don't get me wrong...

Why does it not make sense though? It would like having 15-30, a very usable (but a bit humble) UWA range.

I really doubt that it is, though, it's so small when compared even to small of FF UWA like Tamron 17-35.

[Asahiflex]

Please also don't forget that lens speeds and focal lenghts are usually modified for marketing purposes. So the 20-40mm f/2.8-4.5 Limited could in fact be a 22-38mm f/3-4.2 (this will be clearer when the lens patent data is filed). And that makes for a much smaller lens than the Tamron.

[thibs]

Why does it not make sense though? It's the 14-28 of FF.

That's not what I meant. An FF 20-40 makes less sense and IMO very weird range as an FF lens. 20-35 would be more in line.
I didn't say it made no sense, though. An APS 20-40 considering current

Anyway there's very small chance it is an FF lens: that size of a lens with 2.8-4 and those focal lengths ? No way IMO but please, Pentax-Ricoh, surprise me !