[Asahiflex]

But how committed is Ricoh to Full Frame? The 150-450 and 70-200 work just as well on aps-c where a 24-70 is awkward and they rebadge/clad a Tamron. They can pull out just as easily and still sell the long zooms.

A 35-105mm (FF equivalent) is not that awkward though. Many brands had such a zoom in the past, even Pentax (A and F).

[mecrox]

But how committed is Ricoh to Full Frame? The 150-450 and 70-200 work just as well on aps-c where a 24-70 is awkward and they rebadge/clad a Tamron. They can pull out just as easily and still sell the long zooms.

The question can just as easily be rephrased: how committed is Ricoh to APS-C? Apart from the new 16-85mm lens and the el cheap folding kit lens, most of the APS-C lenses are increasingly old and many are behind the curve in terms of AF motors. Their standard telephoto zoom, the 55-300mm, doesn't even have a motor at all, relying on screwdrive from the camera. Replacing all those with good modern designs would be just as expensive as designing any FF lens but they could never be sold as dual format lenses whereas all FF lenses are dual format. A fair guess is that if FF works for Ricoh they will put much more effort into FF than they will into APS-C in the next few years. At the moment, it doesn't seem as if they have the scale to put masses of effort into both at the same time anyway.

[D1N0]

A 35-105mm (FF equivalent) is not that awkward though. Many brands had such a zoom in the past, even Pentax (A and F).

In the past they didn't have zoom design down yet. Nowadays most 24-70's are best at 24mm. 35mm is just not wide enough to be versatile on a standard zoom. For City and Landscape you want more wide angle.

[Mistral75]

But how committed is Ricoh to Full Frame? The 150-450 and 70-200 work just as well on aps-c where a 24-70 is awkward and they rebadge/clad a Tamron. They can pull out just as easily and still sell the long zooms.

Exactly:

- higher fixed costs (R&D costs) and lower operating/proportional costs (no licence fees) for the lenses they are sure to sell in any case since they work well with APS-C bodies

versus

- lower fixed costs (limited developments) and higher operating/proportional costs (licence fees to be paid to Tamron) for the lens(es) the sales of which are linked to those of the 24x36 camera(s).

[banep]

Would be an interesting approach for Ricoh to release a cheaper 24-70 f/2.8 kit, then (presumably) bring a start lens with almost the same specifications, plus AW, maybe SDM, aero bright, improved optics etc.

With other manufacturers the 24-70 f/2.8 range is reserved for the pro-standard zoom, whereas cheaper FF kits are usually 24-120 f/4 or similar.

D-FA 28-105 (probably f/4 of f/3.5-4.5) is in the lens map for 2015* (2015 or later) and I expect to be be a kit lens for a second cheaper body.
It won't be a kit lens for flagship camera but who knows, everything depends on prices and sales figures.

---------- Post added 09-24-15 at 02:10 PM ----------

But how committed is Ricoh to Full Frame? The 150-450 and 70-200 work just as well on aps-c where a 24-70 is awkward and they rebadge/clad a Tamron. They can pull out just as easily and still sell the long zooms.

Off course they can, they are not gamblers.

[ColiNiloK]

If this Pentax 24-70 f2.8 is not even a star lens and cost this much already, then what will be a star lens?How much will that cost? Pentax 24-70 f2? 24-85/105 f2.8? $2400+ USD? Consider the Pentax 70-200mm f2.8 is a star lens already I would assume that this should be a star lens.

[FantasticMrFox]

If this Pentax 24-70 f2.8 is not even a star lens and cost this much already, then what will be a star lens?

Ehm ... if the ￥160,000 (ca. $1,350) figure is correct, that's hardly much. The new Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 to be released in October is officially priced at ￥251,500 (ca. $2,100). So there's plenty of room for Pentax to produce a D FA* at a significantly higher price, and still be able to compete with Nikon and Canon.

[Kunzite]

A rebadged Tamron cannot be a D FA* lens. It simply cannot meet the constructive requirements - even if its Jun Hirakawa-designed optics are up there.

The Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 is $2400, a Pentax D FA* 24-70 f/2.8 would have been priced similarly.

I'm a bit upset about this rebadging stuff; Pentax should strive to become again a leader in optical design, not to outsource it. I hope we'll see some very nice Pentax primes next year, or else my level of grumpiness will get upgraded.
No "I'm jumping ship" though, doing it won't get me Pentax lenses.

[rawr]

I would assume that this should be a star lens.

Many Canikon folks seem happy to substitute this Tamron model for their expensive 24-70 f2.8 brand equivalents. So maybe Pentax won't feel the need to produce a DA* model if the optical and AF performance is good.

I can't see them issuing two 24-70 f2.8's - a DA* model, then this one - since this lens hardly qualifies as a mere kit lens. A FF kit would be a 24-85 f3.5-f4.5, like Nikon uses as a FF kit lens. Maybe that's what we will see in early 2016.

[Kunzite]

Indeed, the "need a 24-70 f/2.8" will be served by this lens for years. After that, perhaps we'll see a Pentax replacement, but not soon; there's so much to do before having redundant products.
Same for the other Tamron rebadge.

[JPT]

I just double-checked the Japanese and what it says is that the manufacturer's recommended price is 226,800 yen. The street price is expected to be between 160,000 and 165,000 yen. The street price in Japan is always somewhat lower than the RRP, but this is notable because it's a much bigger difference than usual. To put it in perspective, it's cheaper than the street price of the 3-year-old Canon at 183,000 yen and the new Nikon at 251,000 yen. It's also more than the Tamron in other mounts, which is about 91,000 yen.

How this translates into overseas prices is anyone's guess.

[Belnan]

It is to bad that they didnt rebadge the Tokina, appearently it is even better than the Tamron. Oh well, I wonder however if the Pentax will be different in anyway optically from the tamron. Does Pentax use there own lens coatings or is this purely a cosmetic diference.

[Na Horuk]

I'm a bit upset about this rebadging stuff; Pentax should strive to become again a leader in optical design, not to outsource it. I hope we'll see some very nice Pentax primes next year, or else my level of grumpiness will get upgraded.

Keep in mind that a lot of photography companies do collaborations. Like the DFA 100mm macro WR, has a long Pentax lineage, but the Tokina 100mm macro uses the same optical design. I think there is even a thread with a list of Pentax lenses that have been shared with other companies (either them making the design and selling it to Pentax, or the other way around). Pentax has done this kind of stuff before, but Pentax seems to always use their own body (so the lens look different) and coatings (SMC). The only problem I see with lenses like that is that often the Pentax version costs more than the other brand.

[rawr]

It is to bad that they didnt rebadge the Tokina

Maybe now the Tokina will be available in K-mount. Or the Tokina could at some point turn into a deluxe DA* 24-70 f2.8, following the path of the Tokina/Pentax 16-50 ...

[Kunzite]

However, the past collaboration - which still raised the question "why I can get the same optics cheaper, for Canon/Nikon" - was sharing optical designs, mostly Pentax, and each company had their own barrels/mechanics/electronics.
In this case it appears the lens is made by Tamron - from what I see the body is Tamron with some customization.

It appears Pentax/Ricoh is limited in their ability to introduce new lenses, or perhaps there were other factors which contributed to this decision. Well, at least the optics are good.

And we're still getting at least 2 high-end Pentax designed lenses this year.