[gorme]

Still baseless speculation.
No way designing a lens takes 1-3 years. it may take that time from start of design to the time it hits the shops.
Pentax have lens design software.
We have no idea about the size Pentax + Ricoh's lens design team. Almost certainly far more than ten persons. Their capacity is unknown to us.

My issue isn't whether Pentax lenses may be outsourced or not, but that this speculation is based on nothing but hot air....

And for your info, there are only 3 lens design softwares around : Oslo (entry level, with very basic optimisation algos), Zeemax and Code V. I was thinking more about the former one, which is the industry standard, and which is consequently very expensive.
No way that they have their own software for lens design at Pentax... They just should have a customised version of Code V which they have modified with home-made macro code.

[bossa]

Follow from what?

---------- Post added 08-12-15 at 02:45 PM ----------



Because Tamron lenses are designed from a totally different perspective from the majority of brand lenses. They are designed to outcompete on price to the manufacturers own lenses and to sell in large volumes. They are typically far worse in terms of particularly built quality and coatings; areas where savings are large. Pentax previous collaboratory "high-end lens, the DA* 16-50, is certainly not multicoated whatever Pentax may claim....

It "follows" from the fact (AFAIK) that Tamron is the only 15-30mm lens provider out there. I don't imagine Pentax developing another one do you?

[thibs]

Funny, all this chitchat about who manufactured lenses for whom. I have Pentax-branded lenses designed by Zeiss Oberkochen (SMC K 28mm f/2 "Hollywood"), but also Pentax-designed and even manufactured lenses branded "Ricoh Rikenon" (the 28mm f/3.5 XR Rikenon). My SMC Pentax-FA 100mm f/3.5 Macro was manufactured by Cosina. The SMC Pentax-DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited Macro is a Tokina design. The SMC Pentax-FA 28-200mm AL [IF] zoom I had on my ZX-5 was from Tamron. The list goes on and on.

Pentax seems to be really promiscuous, don't they? The same goes for all other optical firms nowadays. Nothing special and nothing to be ashamed of either!

AFAIK the 35mm macro is a Pentax design (not that it changes much anything, your point is made ).

BTW, Tamron also did a couple kit lenses, 18-250 and 18-270 .

[Fogel70]

AFAIK the 35mm macro is a Pentax design (not that it changes much anything, your point is made ).

BTW, Tamron also did a couple kit lenses, 18-250 and 18-270 .

It's only the DA 12-24 mm lens that has Tokina designed optics, all other of the DA and DA* lenses in the Pentax/Tokina collaboration was designed by Pentax. But except for 100mm macro and 10-17mm fish eye, I don't think Tokina manufacture these lenses designed by Pentax anymore. And Tokina have replace the 12-24mm lens with 12-28mm lens.

[thibs]

It's only the DA 12-24 mm lens that has Tokina designed optics, all other of the lenses DA and DA* lenses in the Pentax/Tokina collaboration was designed by Pentax. But except for 100mm macro and 10-17mm fish eye, I don't think Tokina manufacture these lenses designed by Pentax anymore. And Tokina have replace the 12-24mm lens with 12-28mm lens.

Thanks for confirming my thoughts.

[timcatn]

And for your info, there are only 3 lens design softwares around :

No idea where you get this from but it is totally wrong.


You can use any high quality physics simulation software with optics modules to design lenses.


A few examples is Comsol, Abaqus and Ansys.

[Nicolas06]

It's only the DA 12-24 mm lens that has Tokina designed optics, all other of the DA and DA* lenses in the Pentax/Tokina collaboration was designed by Pentax. But except for 100mm macro and 10-17mm fish eye, I don't think Tokina manufacture these lenses designed by Pentax anymore. And Tokina have replace the 12-24mm lens with 12-28mm lens.

And the 12-28 is on Pentax road map.

[Nicolas06]

It "follows" from the fact (AFAIK) that Tamron is the only 15-30mm lens provider out there. I don't imagine Pentax developing another one do you?

They could design another one... There already many 24-70 out there. Or they could rebadge. Or buy the formula.

Anyway, there as long as the result is great, where the issue?

[gorme]

No idea where you get this from but it is totally wrong.


You can use any high quality physics simulation software with optics modules to design lenses.


A few examples is Comsol, Abaqus and Ansys.

Yep that's true ! But in the optical design industry the main ones are Zeemax and Code V, because as a lens designer I need optimisation and tollerancing algorithms, not just simulation. For the simulation part, even Matlab is enough.
Regarding where I get this from, I will just say that I have graduate in Optics in one of the 5 big Optics formations (Jena, Arizona, Rochester, Osaka, Paris)...

[Zygonyx]

Interesting
I like this kind of constructive exchanges, bringing knowledge to everybody.
Something the no-no sayers should better appreciate

[gorme]

Interesting
I like this kind of constructive exchanges, bringing knowledge to everybody.
Something the no-no sayers should better appreciate

I hate saying 'You should trust me because'. People are free to do whatever they want with the information I provide, but I like to give double checked information..

[Rondec]

They could design another one... There already many 24-70 out there. Or they could rebadge. Or buy the formula.

Anyway, there as long as the result is great, where the issue?

It feels like the 24-70 and the 70-200 are the "easy" lenses, while a 14-24 f2.8 zoom is a lens that Pentax doesn't really have experience with in the past and probably is a tougher proposition. It is so tough to do these ultra wide angle zooms well and there are plenty of examples of wide angle zooms that are less than stellar. The Tamron is ranked up there with the Nikon 14-24 with regard to performance and I would be really pleased if Pentax used its formula rather than trying to create their own from scratch.

[Kunzite]

@gorme:
I don't think there's as much disagreement as it seems at a glance. For example, Pal said "Pentax have lens design software", not "Pentax have an in-house developed lens design software"; and if you're including not only the optics but all the lens (e.g. barrel, electronics etc.) in those 1-3 years, that's more or less an agreement as well.
What's suspicious is the claim - which is not yours, nor Pal's - that Pentax would only be able to launch ~2 lenses per format (whatever that means). We know they planned for more (even if the 15-30 might be a Tamron). And the implied idea that it's because they can't design the optics for more lenses at once.

Anyway, nice to have someone with actual experience in lens design; I'll pay attention to your posts.

[rawr]

Pentax was able to design more than 2 lenses a year (135, 645, 6x7 etc) back in the days before desktop PC's even existed. Any current limitations on their lens output are not technical, but relate to economics, and management priorities.

[Kunzite]

Indeed. And with a 1-3 years development time from the beginning to the completion of a (fully new) lens, what we saw in the first years of Pentax Ricoh/Ricoh Imaging is not an indicative of what is happening right now, in their R&D centers.