[Mistral75]

Here, if correct, a useful résumé of what lenses appeared as Schneider or Samsung (all Pentax rebrand in any case):
Samsung and Schneider-Kreuznach Lenses - Site News | PentaxForums.com

The relation between Samsung and Schneider Kreuznach gets back to 1995, when Samsung bought Rollei from Heinrich Mandermann, a German entrepreneur who also owned Schneider Kreuznach, Beroflex, Praktica and Exakta at that time.

In 1997 Samsung launched their first and only 24x36 film camera: the Samsung Kenox GX-1, known as Samsung SR-4000 outside Korea.

The Samsung Kenox GX-1 / SR-4000 was a manual focus camera and had a specific bayonet mount. There were three lenses alongside it:

- 50mm f/1.4,
- 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and
- 70-210 f/4.5-5.6.

These lenses were labelled Samsung in Korea and Schneider Kreuznach for export markets (the 50mm f/1.4 was for instance designated as 'Xenon').

The Kenox GX-1 was quite successful in Korea whilst the sales of the SR-4000 were few and it ended its commercial career in discount stores in the United States.

[FantasticMrFox]

Considering Pentax cooperated with Tamron to release the 24-70 f/2.8 under their name, is rumoured to be doing the same with the 15-30 f/2.8 and has worked with Tokina in the past, I really don't see why they cannot bring us the 11-16 f/2.8. That thing looks like a stellar, yet still affordable UWA (an area where Pentax is still lacking) with high build quality and fast AF. Add weather sealing and HD coatings, and Pentax would finally have a superb, weather sealed, fast UWA zoom.

[shhh]

I agree but the mark up on the rebadged tamron lenses seems a bit of a rip off. Yes you get a couple of extra coatings and afew extra seals, but come on were talking a few dollars not hundreds.

[starjedi]

I agree but the mark up on the rebadged tamron lenses seems a bit of a rip off. Yes you get a couple of extra coatings and afew extra seals, but come on were talking a few dollars not hundreds.

The rebadged 24-70 2.8 price is almost same as original..

[shhh]

Well current street price for the Pentax 24-70 in the UK is £970. vs £680 for the tamron version in a canon fit.

[Nicolas06]

Well current street price for the Pentax 24-70 in the UK is £970. vs £680 for the tamron version in a canon fit.

Both Tamron and Pentax need to make money from it !

[starjedi]

Well current street price for the Pentax 24-70 in the UK is £970. vs £680 for the tamron version in a canon fit.

I see. U.S seems to be different. Pentax 24-70 2.8 is cheaper than Tamron 24-70 2.8 ($1296 vs $1299)

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD Lens for Nikon AFA007N-700 B&H

Pentax HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm f/2.8ED SDM WR Lens 21310 B&H

But Tamron 24-70 2.8 has a $100 rebate in this month.

[Simen1]

Considering Pentax cooperated with Tamron to release the 24-70 f/2.8 under their name, is rumoured to be doing the same with the 15-30 f/2.8 and has worked with Tokina in the past, I really don't see why they cannot bring us the 11-16 f/2.8.

Even though very mm counts a lot in the wide angle range, the zoom ratio is only 1,45. That is so little I would rather have a prime and crop the little difference if necessary. A 10mm f/2,0 or so.

[lytrytyr]

Even though very mm counts a lot in the wide angle range, the zoom ratio is only 1,45. That is so little I would rather have a prime and crop the little difference if necessary.

With modern wide angles, which have to be big anyway,
there's no real advantage to having a prime.

Your crop would be equivalent to a loss of resolution
which a zoom would enable you to keep.

I love primes myself,
but have come to appreciate the 08 wide zoom on the Q system.

[reh321]

With modern wide angles, which have to be big anyway,
there's no real advantage to having a prime.

Your crop would be equivalent to a loss of resolution
which a zoom would enable you to keep.

I love primes myself,
but have come to appreciate the 08 wide zoom on the Q system.

This is one of those YMMV situations. When I got my first SLR in 1979, zooms were uncommon for anything other than telephoto. Having a prime "standard" lens and a prime wide angle was typical; the difference in focal length was typically 2:1 or less, so accepting a slightly different framing by "zooming with feet" was very reasonable. Are you certain that a prime wide angle would have to be large? I have a 28mm Pentax-M lens, and it is smaller than my 50mm Pentax-M lens; now, the 28mm is f/2.8 and the 50mm is f/2, but I'm not convinced that most of us need anything faster than f/2.8 for that purpose anyway. And, of course, when you are talking wide angle zoom, you're also talking about serious money.

Incidentally, I do have a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 for my K-30. I was willing to spend the serious money to get that lens because there are places, such as museums, where I simply cannot get the picture I want without wide angle. However, I have refused to buy the Q-mount 08 (which also costs serious money) because one lens like that is more than enough for my budget, but I would be more than happy to buy a 4.2mm/4.4mm prime lens if it were priced "comparably" to the 01 standard prime

[lytrytyr]

Are you certain that a prime wide angle would have to be large?

For film, no, you can get away with pancakes
like the Pentax M20/4 or Voigtlaender Color Skopar 20/3.5.

But a good modern interchangeable extreme wide-angle lens
has to send the rays vertically down to the sensor,
which means a big reverse-telephoto design.
Then you probably need internal focusing
with moving groups small enough to work well with autofocus,
and pretty soon your lens is as complex as any zoom,
so why not make it a zoom anyway,
so you don't lose resolution by cropping?

I have a 28mm Pentax-M lens, and it is smaller than my 50mm Pentax-M lens

Those are from the film era, and we're talking about lenses that are way wider than they are.

I have refused to buy the Q-mount 08 (which also costs serious money) because one lens like that is more than enough for my budget, but I would be more than happy to buy a 4.2mm/4.4mm prime lens if it were priced "comparably" to the 01 standard prime

The patented wide Q primes look like they'll cost as much as the 08 zoom,
with their advantage lying in their speed.

If you want a cheap wide angle for the Q,
you'll probably need to adapt a surveillance or old cine lens.

[reh321]

For film, no, you can get away with pancakes
like the Pentax M20/4 or Voigtlaender Color Skopar 20/3.5.

But a good modern interchangeable extreme wide-angle lens
has to send the rays vertically down to the sensor,
which means a big reverse-telephoto design.
Then you probably need internal focusing
with moving groups small enough to work well with autofocus,
and pretty soon your lens is as complex as any zoom,
so why not make it a zoom anyway,
so you don't lose resolution by cropping?.

In 1995 I switched from Pentax to Canon because I felt that Canon lenses were better
In 2013 I switched from Canon to Pentax, despite my still liking Canon lenses, because I felt Pentax bodies are better.
So I went back and looked at what Canon currently has.

11-24mm f/4 weighs 1180g and costs $2999

14mm f/2.8 weighs 645g and costs $2099

50mm f/1.2 weighs 590g and cost $1350

The wide prime is much closer to the standard prime in both weight and cost

The wide zoom cost 50% more and weighs nearly twice as much.
If I had that kind of money to spend, I'm fairly sure that I would buy the wide prime.
(as I said in my first post, this is one of those YMMV situations)

[awaldram]

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.

You forget one importance piece of evidence that Pentax build da*16-50 and Tokina built their version in separate factories.

The early 16-50 was plagued with mis aligned elements leading to many returns .... Pentax sent a trouble shooting team to the Vietnam factory to improve the QC process.
The Tokina was never shot with these issues.

Now either Tokina was deliberately sabotaging da* production runs or they were not made in the same factories, But I suspect both companies blanks were made by Hoya.
On the Tamron re-badges these were all obviously previously made in the Tamron factories even to the point the 18-250 smc coating was clearly Tamrons own (Colour cast was Tamron not Pentax)
This was because SMC obviously only stands for Super Multi Coated and can be any multi coated process.
I see no reason the same does not apply to a High Definition coating and would like to see the cast of the 24-70 I suspect it is Tamrons coating

Zoolander seems to be living in a world of fantasy with very little grip on the requirements of modern manufacturing nor commercial 'secret' Vs Sale marketing.

[Digitalis]

Now either Tokina was deliberately sabotaging da* production runs or they were not made in the same factories, But I suspect both companies blanks were made by Hoya.

I don't think Hoya* is to blame in the case of the 16-50mm f/2.8. If Pentax and Tokina are using the same supplier, which makes the most economic sense then there is something, somewhere down the production line that caused all these initial issues. Decentering is an issue with physical mechanical tolerances, it not an optical** issue as such.


*or whoever the glass supplier was, the thing is that the 50-135mm f/2.8 didn't suffer the same problems is rather curious.
**though the effects on decentering have considerable negative effects upon optical performance.

[Na Horuk]

This was because SMC obviously only stands for Super Multi Coated and can be any multi coated process. I see no reason the same does not apply to a High Definition coating and would like to see the cast of the 24-70 I suspect it is Tamrons coating

If that is true, that is really too bad. SMC and good coatings was a big thing for Pentax in the past. Its too bad they went from SMC (unique, has history) to HD (silly name, even if the coating process is more affordable and results are better). Lens coatings should be a Pentax priority, as it is one of the things that differentiates them from other brands (many of which had problems with contrast, flare in the past)