[Matthew Saville]

The sigma 18-35 f/1.8 has a small zoom range, but that limited focal length range hasn't stunted its appeal. A 14-20mm f/2 would be excellent for astro/landsacpe photographers...as long as coma and fringing is well controlled.

Which is something that both Tokina 2.8 ultrawides have been known for; extremely low coma even at 11mm. I suspect the 14-20mm f/2 DX will be a killer choice for APS-C shooters, or even for full-frame shooters who do lots of astro-landscape work that requires / benefits from having a 2nd or even 3rd body for secondary timelapse angles at a generally wide-and-fast focal range, even a narrow one.

Considering the low-light performance that is possible nowadays from the newest Nikon 24 MP sensors, (from the same source as the Pentax 24 MP sensors?) ...I wouldn't hesitate to buy this lens and permanently attach it to an ultralight beginner Nikon DSLR like the D3300 or D5500, both of which have high ISO performance that nearly matches the full-frame bodies of yesteryear, (Canon 1Ds, 5D) ...and completely blows away those same cameras for base ISO dynamic range.

A Pentax APS-C shooter who does nightscapes / timelapse work could use a K-3 II as their primary camera, and a Nikon D3300 + 14-20 f/2 as their 2nd angle camera.

A Pentax FF shooter who does nightscapes / timelapse work could use the K-1 (FF) as their primary camera, a K-3 II as their 2nd camera, and still have room (on some trips at least, maybe not a backpacking trip) for that same Nikon+Tokina setup.

Still, it'd be very, very nice to see Tokina and Pentax cooperate again. Maybe the Pentax FF will generate enough surge for Pentax in general that their APS-C line becomes relevant enough for Tokina to resume cooperation, or at least the licensing of optical formulas.

[zoolander]

A Pentax APS-C shooter who does nightscapes / timelapse work could use a K-3 II as their primary camera, and a Nikon D3300 + 14-20 f/2 as their 2nd angle camera.

D3300 or D5500, cameras without mirror lock up? No screw drive also ? Thats the photographic equivalent of the dark ages. Plus I can't stand Expeeds color science.

Still, it'd be very, very nice to see Tokina and Pentax cooperate again. Maybe the Pentax FF will generate enough surge for Pentax in general that their APS-C line becomes relevant enough for Tokina to resume cooperation, or at least the licensing of optical formulas.

I don't think we'll see Pentax and Tokina co-operating like that again. When Pentax got Tokina to manufacture those lenses, Tokina's QC and the SDM motors is what caused so much pain for Pentax. When the co-operation ended, and Tokina stopped making some of those lenses for their own line, the cost of lenses made for Pentax rose (because Tokina's not making money from the joint venture). I think that this is why we're seeing Pentax go to Tamron for the 24-70 for the better QC. The 70-200 2.8 which is delayed, is another enigma which may very well be made by Pentax, but without the stigma of the old SDM's and a DC motor.

[Nicolas06]

zoolander what you put here are hypothesis you craft in your own brain. It could be right, could be wrong. In the end it is of no importance anyway.

For something to be pattented come the constraint to actually publish the pattent and the ability for anybody to reuse the idea for themselve. That core to the idea of pattent as a way to not halt but promote innovation and sharing of ideas. But of course the pattent owner is bound to have the right to ask for some compensation in exchange.

As for factories, don't think that a factory can only produce a few things, always the same. The batch for lenses are very small anyway and once a batch has been produced you continue to pay the workers etc. What make sense is to have your factory doing as many things it can provided you can sell them.

Also don't think that everybody is going to do the same. Digitalis explained that many outsourced the lenses themselves but you can see a sigma factory video where they indeed buy the raw glass from a manufacturer but create the lens out of it themselves in factory.

So basically without an actual source to check what is really happening, we have no clue and a guess is just that a guess and is not more likely than any other option.

[zoolander]

zoolander what you put here are hypothesis you craft in your own brain. It could be right, could be wrong. In the end it is of no importance anyway.

For something to be pattented come the constraint to actually publish the pattent and the ability for anybody to reuse the idea for themselve. That core to the idea of pattent as a way to not halt but promote innovation and sharing of ideas. But of course the pattent owner is bound to have the right to ask for some compensation in exchange.

As for factories, don't think that a factory can only produce a few things, always the same. The batch for lenses are very small anyway and once a batch has been produced you continue to pay the workers etc. What make sense is to have your factory doing as many things it can provided you can sell them.

Also don't think that everybody is going to do the same. Digitalis explained that many outsourced the lenses themselves but you can see a sigma factory video where they indeed buy the raw glass from a manufacturer but create the lens out of it themselves in factory.

So basically without an actual source to check what is really happening, we have no clue and a guess is just that a guess and is not more likely than any other option.

In the late 80's early 90's, Fiat, Volvo and Ford co-developed a 5 cylinder engine. At the same time Fiat, Saab and another (I forget) co-developed a car chassis - Saab 900, Alpha Romeo 164 etc etc.

Fords Fiesta uses engines manufactured by Peugeot. Mercedes uses engines manufactured by Renault and Nissan etc etc etc.

This is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo commonplace in manufacturing that its not funny.

I've been into cars for years, read 100's of auto magazines, and they speak of this all the time.

I am stunned, that all these photographers on here think that Pentax makes all their own lenses. I am stunned, that folks here think that Tokina and Pentax would duplicate manufacturing factories, for the manufacture of shared lens design.

I bet in years to come, that this new 24-70mm Tamron/Pentax lens, which is manufactured (in my brain) at Tamron, will somehow be magically manufactured at Pentax (in someone else's brain), You watch !

I've got the 10-17 fisheye, 12-24, 16-50, 50-135, and I believe that they were almost certainly made at Tokina, under the watchful eye of Pentax, and to the stringent specification of Pentax. I don't mind that, they're fantastic lenses. Perhaps they WERE'NT made at Tokina, but common sense shows that Pentax and Tokina had a joint venture, and to save manufacturing costs they would manufacture them at one plant.

Here's the example of the 18-270. Folks believe the Pentax version is made by Tamron, and it would be safe to assume that Tamron manufactures this lens for Pentax. Now take a look at how they test:

Pentax version

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/pentax-smc-da-18-270mm-f-3-5-6-3-sdm-lens-review-21305

Tamron version

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-af-18-270mm-f-3-5-6-3-di-ii-vc-pzd...s-review-15448

Both with a different outcome. Someone might suggest that perhaps Pentax pays a licence fee to Tamron to make the lens and manufactures the lens at Pentax. But common sense dictates that a company will not duplicate an entire factory line - its cheaper to make them at one plant.

[Kunzite]

Nicolas: No, it's wrong. For Pete's sake, those Pentax lenses were made in Pentax' Hanoi lens factory, they have "assembled in Vietnam" written on them.
And there are constructive differences, regarding the AF systems (Pentax DA*s having a dual screw-drive and SDM piezo micro-motors, the corresponding Tokinas having only screw drive for Nikon, and AFAIK a DC motor for Canon), quick-shift-focus being only on the Pentax (a manual clutch mechanism on the Tokinas), weather sealing being only on the Pentax.
I'm going to ask zoolander to stop intentionally filling this forum with misinformation, unfortunately I don't think he will.

[zoolander]

Nicolas: No, it's wrong. For Pete's sake, those Pentax lenses were made in Pentax' Hanoi lens factory, they have "assembled in Vietnam" written on them.
And there are constructive differences, regarding the AF systems (Pentax DA*s having a dual screw-drive and SDM piezo micro-motors, the corresponding Tokinas having only screw drive for Nikon, and AFAIK a DC motor for Canon), quick-shift-focus being only on the Pentax (a manual clutch mechanism on the Tokinas), weather sealing being only on the Pentax.
I'm going to ask zoolander to stop intentionally filling this forum with misinformation, unfortunately I don't think he will.

Okay, you want me to shut up, okay then I will shut up.

My intention was to not spread misinformation. I'm not a misinformation spreading type of guy. I have never filled this FORUM with misinformation, I am discussing one topic on one thread - expressing my views on this one topic on one thread and not across the entire forum.

In all honesty, I couldn't really care less where these or any lenses are made - as long as they're made.

Thank you kindly. I'll shut up. But I'd rather it that you didn't falsely accuse me of spreading misinformation.

[Kunzite]

I don't want you to shut up, and in any case I'm in no position of asking you that. What I'm asking is for you to accept evidence when provided, instead of ignoring it.

[VoiceOfReason]

I'd like to have this, but I doubt I could justify having it based on the lenses I already have.

[northcoastgreg]

I am stunned, that all these photographers on here think that Pentax makes all their own lenses. I am stunned, that folks here think that Tokina and Pentax would duplicate manufacturing factories, for the manufacture of shared lens design.

The photographers here believe Pentax makes their own lenses because that's in fact the case. Consider asahi man's testimony concerning the DA 12-24:

The Tokina [is] a coproduct of Tokina and Pentax and made in thei[r] own 2 factories.

The optics are using different glass and complete different multicoating like in all cases between the Tokina/Pentax co-lenses.

The Patent of the 12-24 is a Tokina patent, but Pentax used [its] own formula of this patent.

Tamron have no 70-200.

If you mean the 18-270, this is a 100% Tamron, cause complete made by Tamron.

If you mean the new 2.8 70-200, it´s a complete Petax Patent and is produced in a Pentax factory.

Best regards.

[volley]

* or at least within manufacturing tolerances, the median variance across the industry is about -/+0.05mm

Where did you find this number?
I hope that this is significantly wrong or I would have to stop thinking lenses are precision work:-)
0.1 mm is very "rough" in manufacturing terms and I am sure it would be unacceptable even for the plastic/metal components of a lens, not to speak about the optical elements.
To give you an idea: for a dimension 100 mm a tolerance of 0.1mm corresponds to an accuracy somewhere between IT9 and IT10. This is far away from being precise or acceptable.

[Matthew Saville]

D3300 or D5500, cameras without mirror lock up? No screw drive also ? Thats the photographic equivalent of the dark ages. Plus I can't stand Expeeds color science.

For an astro-landscape shooter, none of these things matter. Focus is done manually 100% of the time, and at least on the D5500 there's a handy-dandy exposure delay mode that works perfectly for general landscape shooting... If anything, to me, traditional mirror lockup and screw drive are the dark ages. ;-)

But again, I'm just talking about a 2nd / 3rd camera here. You can do all your main shooting with whatever other camera you like, and just break out the super-light 14-20 f/2 kit once your other camera is already running the primary timelapse / exposure sequence.

[Digitalis]

Where did you find this number? I hope that this is significantly wrong or I would have to stop thinking lenses are precision work

I got the number from various glass manufacturing technical publications from Schott,Ohara,Asahi,Corning et al. In the glass fabrication industry the most common allowable variance in diameter for a finished lens is 0.05mm+/- as the median figure, the minimal deviance is about 0.1 μm for high precision optics.

[MadMathMind]

The sigma 18-35 f/1.8 has a small zoom range, but that limited focal length range hasn't stunted its appeal. A 14-20mm f/2 would be excellent for astro/landsacpe photographers...as long as coma and fringing is well controlled.

Zooms with big range are seriously overrated. Too many compromises. You really only need 2 or 3 of the focal lengths anyway (two ends and a mid point). A difference of 20mm is a really nice range for a lens to have. It's enough that the optical design remains strong yet long enough for the lens to be flexible.

[Digitalis]

A difference of 20mm is a really nice range for a lens to have.

At the wide end - At the long end you can get away with a wider range - the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG and Pentax FA*250-600mm f/5.6 ED [IF] are good examples of this.

[Nicolas06]

I've got the 10-17 fisheye, 12-24, 16-50, 50-135, and I believe that they were almost certainly made at Tokina, under the watchful eye of Pentax, and to the stringent specification of Pentax. I don't mind that, they're fantastic lenses. Perhaps they WERE'NT made at Tokina, but common sense shows that Pentax and Tokina had a joint venture, and to save manufacturing costs they would manufacture them at one plant.

Yep that a pure guess. and apparently this a wrong guess.

It is not to say that things are not shared or that everybody make everything in their own factory, no. But the reality is more complex, each case is different and we don't always know the true reason.