Ricoh files a patent for a Pentax 35-80mm f/4 full frame lens

beachboy2 · 06-01-2016, 09:56 PM - **1 Like**

I've got a Pentax SMC-A 35-70 F4 with good macro capability for sale on ebay. Was kit lens with my wife's Program A a long time ago.

ogl · 06-01-2016, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by TwoUptons

It seems a weird focal length range for the 21st century...

-Eric

Vintage...

Anyway...28-105/3.5-5.6 has better resolution than 24-70/2.8 at almost all focal lengths. 24-70 is just a bit better at 24 mm only.

35-80/4 macro is interesting

gazonk · 06-02-2016, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by ogl

35-80/4 macro is interesting

A real macro zoom would be a novelty, but 35-80 would be a somewhat weird focal range, wouldn't it?

I'm still flabbergasted by the complexity of this lens given it's modest aperture and zoom range.

D1N0 · 06-02-2016, 03:51 AM

Maybe Ricoh is having us on and are now laughing at the comments.

Sliver-Surfer · 06-02-2016, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

A real macro zoom would be a novelty, but 35-80 would be a somewhat weird focal range, wouldn't it?

I'm still flabbergasted by the complexity of this lens given it's modest aperture and zoom range.

35-80mm is a nice walk around lens for street and tourist type shooting. I think it would be great for shooting outdoor groups. Check out my 35-80mm 2.8-3.8 Adaptall of FF...one of my favorite lenses.

You Tube

gazonk · 06-02-2016, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer

35-80mm is a nice walk around lens for street and tourist type shooting.

Sure. But maybe not an oversized monster with umpteen elements like this looks like.

Zen4Life · 06-02-2016, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Anyway...28-105/3.5-5.6 has better resolution than 24-70/2.8 at almost all focal lengths. 24-70 is just a bit better at 24 mm only.

First I heard of this, so I headed over to ephotozine and yes, that lens looks surprisingly good. And weather sealed to boot and much, much lighter...

pathdoc · 06-02-2016, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

But maybe not an oversized monster with umpteen elements like this looks like.

You've got to remember that the 35-80 lenses of yore were generally not constant-aperture affairs; the were f/3.5 or 4 at the wide end down to 4.5 or 5.6 at the narrow. Keeping that constant f/4 is going to bump your size up, though I agree there's probably an element of "let's see how much glass we can stuff in to make sure every little aberration is corrected always" in the design thinking.

D1N0 · 06-02-2016, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

Keeping that constant f/4 is going to bump your size up

FA 28-70 F4:
Diam x Length
65.5 x 66 mm (2.6 x 2.6 in.) Weight
240 g (8.5 oz.)
9 elements 7 groups.

pathdoc · 06-02-2016, 08:50 AM

Then it would appear that this...

Originally posted by pathdoc

an element of "let's see how much glass we can stuff in to make sure every little aberration is corrected always"

...is the driving factor.

gaddigad · 06-02-2016, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Mock

No kidding, why 35? The 28-70 f/4 AL was decent, give that one a refresh with some better QC than the original.

The FA 28-70 f4 is very decent indeed on aps-c (lens separation issue aside) and 28 is a much better fit than 35 for aps-c.
FA 24-90 f3.5-4.5 was a decent lens too. Why not re-issue (and refresh) one of those?

Zygonyx · 06-02-2016, 08:06 PM

I guess too close from DFA24-70 rangewise...

pathdoc · 06-03-2016, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by gaddigad

FA 24-90 f3.5-4.5 was a decent lens too. Why not re-issue (and refresh) one of those?

I suspect a new-build consumer-level variable-aperture 24-90 might take sales away from the 24-70, for those users who were prepared to live with the slightly slower and variable aperture (e.g. always using it in bright sunlight), and also the 28-105, for those who were prepared to lose the extra 15mm at the long end.

D1N0 · 06-03-2016, 04:05 AM

If the patent said 24-105 I would believe it, the dimensions and number of elements would make sense. Nikon Canon and Sigma Have Similar offers. All struggle at being excellent though.

normhead · 06-03-2016, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by johnmflores

What benefits would the K-1 with a bag of F4 zooms have (if any) over a K-3 II with a bag of F2.8 zooms?

From what I've seen, a K-1 wide open at ƒ4 and 6400 ISO, would have less noise than a K-3II at ƒ2.8 and 1600 ISO, the same DoF, half the weight. of a comparable 2.8 lens, Having a 60-250ƒ4 instead of a 70-200 ƒ2,8, I have to say, this would be a lens I might be interested in if the cost differential, is like that of the 60-250 and the 70-200, and the quality is up there with the 60-250,

I have an FA 35-80 I use occasionally on APS-c. It would be a lot more useful on FF,

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nikon files patent for mirrorless full frame lens	neostyles	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	2	12-18-2014 07:21 PM
Nikon Patent for Full Frame Mirrorless Lens	Winder	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	12-16-2014 06:49 PM
ricoh files patent on 2 Q lens designs and on 4/3 design!	shaolen	Pentax News and Rumors	20	08-21-2014 12:03 AM
Tamron patent for a 15-50mm f/1.4 lens?	Phil A	Pentax Q	2	04-17-2014 08:07 PM
Pentax files a patent for a DA*25-350mm F3.3-5.6ED [IF] SDM lens	grandnax	Pentax News and Rumors	50	01-25-2011 08:57 AM

06-01-2016, 09:56 PM - 1 Like	#61
beachboy2 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 222	I've got a Pentax SMC-A 35-70 F4 with good macro capability for sale on ebay. Was kit lens with my wife's Program A a long time ago.

06-01-2016, 10:01 PM	#62
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by TwoUptons It seems a weird focal length range for the 21st century... -Eric Vintage... Anyway...28-105/3.5-5.6 has better resolution than 24-70/2.8 at almost all focal lengths. 24-70 is just a bit better at 24 mm only. 35-80/4 macro is interesting

06-02-2016, 12:52 AM	#63
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by ogl 35-80/4 macro is interesting A real macro zoom would be a novelty, but 35-80 would be a somewhat weird focal range, wouldn't it? I'm still flabbergasted by the complexity of this lens given it's modest aperture and zoom range.

06-02-2016, 03:51 AM	#64
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Maybe Ricoh is having us on and are now laughing at the comments.

06-02-2016, 05:45 AM	#66
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer 35-80mm is a nice walk around lens for street and tourist type shooting. Sure. But maybe not an oversized monster with umpteen elements like this looks like.

06-02-2016, 08:17 AM	#67
Zen4Life Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 63	Quote: Anyway...28-105/3.5-5.6 has better resolution than 24-70/2.8 at almost all focal lengths. 24-70 is just a bit better at 24 mm only. First I heard of this, so I headed over to ephotozine and yes, that lens looks surprisingly good. And weather sealed to boot and much, much lighter...

06-02-2016, 08:41 AM	#68
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by gazonk But maybe not an oversized monster with umpteen elements like this looks like. You've got to remember that the 35-80 lenses of yore were generally not constant-aperture affairs; the were f/3.5 or 4 at the wide end down to 4.5 or 5.6 at the narrow. Keeping that constant f/4 is going to bump your size up, though I agree there's probably an element of "let's see how much glass we can stuff in to make sure every little aberration is corrected always" in the design thinking.

06-02-2016, 08:45 AM	#69
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by pathdoc Keeping that constant f/4 is going to bump your size up FA 28-70 F4: Diam x Length 65.5 x 66 mm (2.6 x 2.6 in.) Weight 240 g (8.5 oz.) 9 elements 7 groups.

06-02-2016, 08:50 AM	#70
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Then it would appear that this... Originally posted by pathdoc an element of "let's see how much glass we can stuff in to make sure every little aberration is corrected always" ...is the driving factor.

06-02-2016, 01:27 PM	#71
gaddigad Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 48	Originally posted by Mock No kidding, why 35? The 28-70 f/4 AL was decent, give that one a refresh with some better QC than the original. The FA 28-70 f4 is very decent indeed on aps-c (lens separation issue aside) and 28 is a much better fit than 35 for aps-c. FA 24-90 f3.5-4.5 was a decent lens too. Why not re-issue (and refresh) one of those?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-02-2016, 08:06 PM	#72
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,032	I guess too close from DFA24-70 rangewise...

06-03-2016, 03:41 AM	#73
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by gaddigad FA 24-90 f3.5-4.5 was a decent lens too. Why not re-issue (and refresh) one of those? I suspect a new-build consumer-level variable-aperture 24-90 might take sales away from the 24-70, for those users who were prepared to live with the slightly slower and variable aperture (e.g. always using it in bright sunlight), and also the 28-105, for those who were prepared to lose the extra 15mm at the long end.

06-03-2016, 04:05 AM	#74
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	If the patent said 24-105 I would believe it, the dimensions and number of elements would make sense. Nikon Canon and Sigma Have Similar offers. All struggle at being excellent though.

06-03-2016, 04:14 AM	#75
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448	Originally posted by johnmflores What benefits would the K-1 with a bag of F4 zooms have (if any) over a K-3 II with a bag of F2.8 zooms? From what I've seen, a K-1 wide open at ƒ4 and 6400 ISO, would have less noise than a K-3II at ƒ2.8 and 1600 ISO, the same DoF, half the weight. of a comparable 2.8 lens, Having a 60-250ƒ4 instead of a 70-200 ƒ2,8, I have to say, this would be a lens I might be interested in if the cost differential, is like that of the 60-250 and the 70-200, and the quality is up there with the 60-250, I have an FA 35-80 I use occasionally on APS-c. It would be a lot more useful on FF,