[ffking]

Right now, I feel like the lack of 3rd party support is hurting Pentax more than the perceived lack of 1st party lenses, or traditional marketing (it seems like most internet users who might consider a camera at the price point of the K-1 are already aware of Pentax). These days people see 3rd party lenses from Tamron and Sigma (especially Art lenses) on equal ground as 1st party Canikon lenses, and are major drivers of the current DSLR market. I'm pretty sure Ricoh knows that as well when they made it a priority to fill in the f/2.8 zoom lineup at the K-1 launch even if they were actually Tamrons in the case of the 15-30 and 24-70, rather than wait for the snail's pace of 1st party lenses.

While it seems like the 3rd party manufacturers are unwilling to put major investments on the line for less popular mounts like K-mount or A-mount now, they have shown that they are more than willing to deal directly with 1st party camera manufacturers. It's not only Tamron with their rebranding deals for Pentax, but it's been revealed that some high end 1st party branded lenses for m4/3 are actually designed by Sigma, such as the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 and the Panasonic-"Leica" (really nothing to do with Leica) 12mm f/1.4, both highly rated lenses.

If Ricoh cannot manage the time and resources to bring out 1st party FF lenses in a timely manner, I feel like they could more aggressively pursue deals with Sigma and Tamron for their (excellent) optical designs. By spreading out the investment, all involved would be much more likely to commit to K-mount: Ricoh doesn't have to spend lots of time and money to create lenses from scratch, and 3rd parties don't have to take a big gamble on supporting K-mount independently: they would have a guaranteed number of orders through Ricoh itself, rather than trying to gauge unknown consumer/retailer demand. Better yet, if Ricoh simply licenses the optical designs (effectively free money for the 3rd parties, seeing as they have no competing lenses for K-mount as is) then they can build the lens bodies themselves, with that famous Pentax weather sealing, like it appears Olympus and Panasonic are doing now.

If there were a sudden increase in the availability of new, high quality FF lenses, eliminating the perpetual "lack of available lenses" con that is on every otherwise glowing review for Pentax cameras, Ricoh could even increase the prices on future bodies a little while still maintaining the perception of excellent value (especially as even APS-C and m4/3 flagships are now hitting $2000). If the difficult "fast prime" market is handled, they could also redirect more resources to more unconventional lenses that devoted Pentax users seem to love, like the Limiteds.

Win-win for all involved as I see it. Of course the biggest winner of all would be Pentax users.

I know that your scenario allows for some unique Pentax designs alongside the 3rd party designs, but in reality, as I see it, Pentax would effectively consign themselves to being a budget camera maker. Pentax's roots are as an optical company and they have proved they they can still compete with the best in lens design while their camera bodies can't compete with the best except in IQ, value and a few unique features that many might feel that they could do without in the face of superior AF etc.. I don't think that Pentax would survive if a significant proportion of their top lenses were available in different mounts - there wouldn't be a sufficiently strong reason to buy Pentax bodies.

[Rondec]

Tokina Vista 35mm T/1.5, 50mm T/1.5 and 85mm T/1.5.

Do these focal lengths and this aperture (= f/1.4) ring a bell?

TOKINA CINEMA ATX

Wow, those are some of the ugliest lenses I've seen. I'm sure they are great to use, but I don't like their look at all.

[kenspo]

Wow, those are some of the ugliest lenses I've seen. I'm sure they are great to use, but I don't like their look at all.

Made mostly for videographers.

[Kunzite]

35mm, 50mm, 85mm f/1.4 (T1.5) - those are standard lenses, there's no reason to assume the optics were designed by Pentax/Ricoh Imaging.

[D1N0]

If Ricoh were cooperating with Tokina still, they would have used the Tokina 24-70, not the Tamron. No using in fretting about every lens brought out by Tokina. Those aren't AF designs anyway.

[Mistral75]

Wow, those are some of the ugliest lenses I've seen. I'm sure they are great to use, but I don't like their look at all.

My point wasn't exactly their look which, by the way, is quite common among cinema lenses.

35mm, 50mm, 85mm f/1.4 (T1.5) - those are standard lenses, there's no reason to assume the optics were designed by Pentax/Ricoh Imaging.

Point #1 is the fact that the next three D FA★ and the first three Tokina Cinema Vista lenses share the same focal lengths and aperture:

• the next three D FA★ are said to be a 35mm ("Large Aperture Wide-Angle Single Focus Lens" on the roadmap but asahi man said it's a 35mm here, here and here), a 50mm (roadmap + mock-up) and a 85mm (roadmap) f/1.4.
• the three available Tokina Cinema ATX lenses are a 35mm, a 50mm and a 85mm T/1.5, which is equivalent to f/1.4.

Point #2 is the following: how could Tokina possibly propose $4,500 24x36 cinema lenses without sharing the development costs with photo versions, like all their competitors?

Until these Tokina Cinema Vista lenses, which cost $4,500 each, any and all full-frame cinema prime lenses under $5,000, i.e. entry-level lenses (*), have been rehoused photo lenses to lower costs:

• Canon Cinema EOS lenses derive from their EF lenses
• Leica M 0.8 (cine) lenses derive from Leica M lenses
• Mitakon cine lenses derive from their photo lenses
• Samyang Cine and Xeen lenses derive form their photo lenses
• Sigma Cine lenses derive from their Art lenses
• SLR Magic cine lenses derive from their photo lenses
• Tokina Cinema ATX lenses derived from their ATX lenses
• Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2 lenses derived from their former Classic ZE/ZF.2 lenses and CP.3 lenses derive from their Milvus lenses.

(*) Cinema-specific lenses like the Zeiss Ultra Prime and Master Prime lenses are much more expensive: between $12,000 and $20,000 for Ultra Prime lenses and between $20,000 and $30,000 for Master Prime lenses.

These three Tokina Cinema Vista lenses are presented as purpose-built for cinema, with specific optical formulas: 14 elements in 13 groups for the 35mm T/1.5 and 13 elements in 10 groups for both the 50mm and the 85mm. They have no equivalent in the portfolio of Tokina photo lenses.

It's difficult to imagine how Tokina could:

1. design and launch five brand new lenses (the three already available plus a 18mm and a 25mm T/1.5 said to follow shortly) in a short period of time with their limited resources and
2. propose a competitive offer in the highly competitive (and more and more crowded) market of entry-level full-frame cinema prime lenses

if their lenses were dedicated to the cinema market with no photo versions to share the development costs with.

Point #3 is the report made by Pentax Forums staff on February 1st, 2013, it being the first solid rumour / confirmation of what was to become the K-1.

A Tokina employee revealed to us today at CP+ that Tokina has renewed their discussions with Pentax about reviving their lens collaboration as of late last year.

According to the employee, Pentax is reportedly developing a full-frame camera (he claims that a prototype already exists). He stated that all lenses developed will be re-branded under the Pentax name as it had been done in the past.

Talks had previously stalled after the Ricoh takeover in 2011, but Pentax has requested that Tokina still show new lens designs for possible collaboration. However, no Tokina prototype lenses have been made for the Pentax full-frame yet, and no deals have been finalized.

Point #4 is something that I just heard which could explain the current delay. The D FA★ 50mm f/1.4 would be fitted out with a new type of focus motor. The development of this new motor would be / would have been taking longer than expected, some difficulties being / having been experienced and Ricoh Imaging being uncompromising about its performances.

Indeed, if the optical formula is an off-the-shelf one, the autofocus system as a source of delay sounds plausible, even more so when you remember the tip received by Zygonyx:

Good news : DFA*50 and 85/1.4 shall come within a short time-frame in 2018's first quarter.

Both in a short time-frame means at worst 2-3 month btw the 2 releases.
I'd think it is 80% reliable.
(...)

Are these just coincidences? I leave it to the reader to judge.

[D1N0]

Why doesn't Tokina sell those primes as AF versions for Canon and Nikon then? I am sure they would sell a hell of a lot more than making a few hundred for Pentax. The fact that these are MF and AF will demand a completely different setup of the lens and because they cost what they cost. That's where Tokina gets the development costs from, These are lenses for the Video and Movie industry, not consumers.

[mee]

I don't think that Pentax would survive if a significant proportion of their top lenses were available in different mounts - there wouldn't be a sufficiently strong reason to buy Pentax bodies.

Some could rightly argue that there currently isn't a sufficiently strong reason to buy Pentax bodies given the current lens lineup...

[mecrox]

Why doesn't Tokina sell those primes as AF versions for Canon and Nikon then? I am sure they would sell a hell of a lot more than making a few hundred for Pentax. The fact that these are MF and AF will demand a completely different setup of the lens and because they cost what they cost. That's where Tokina gets the development costs from, These are lenses for the Video and Movie industry, not consumers.

It's perfectly plausible that Pentax have done a deal with Tokina for three new FF prime lenses derived from these new cinema lenses. Plausible - but no more than 100 per cent speculation until more details emerge. If "a few hundred" really is the total Pentax market for the new FF primes, then sharing development costs with another outfit rather than going it alone could make a great deal of sense. It would be a surprise if a deal hadn't been done, in those circumstances. But as of now, and beyond saying there is plenty of precedent for this, we just don't know. As for any delay in releasing the new Pentax primes, there could be 101 reasons including there being no actual delay at all. It's also possible that in time Tokina will sell these new primes as AF stills lenses for other mounts but, for example, the deal is to give Pentax an exclusive for X amount of time.

[Mistral75]

(...) The fact that these are MF and AF will demand a completely different setup of the lens and because they cost what they cost. That's where Tokina gets the development costs from, These are lenses for the Video and Movie industry, not consumers.

My interrogation remains: how can Tokina be able to ask the same amount of money as their competitors and recoup their development costs when their competitors derive their entry-level cinema lenses from existing photographic lenses (or develop them jointly, cf. Sigma) if Tokina have to start from scratch and cannot share the development costs with photographic versions of the lenses?

[Kunzite]

@Mistral: yes, a collaboration is possible (I see it as Pentax/Ricoh sharing their optical designs with Tokina), but then it could also be a coincidence - as those are really standard lenses.
I'm not rejecting any possibility, we just need more data.

[mecrox]

I know that your scenario allows for some unique Pentax designs alongside the 3rd party designs, but in reality, as I see it, Pentax would effectively consign themselves to being a budget camera maker. Pentax's roots are as an optical company and they have proved they they can still compete with the best in lens design while their camera bodies can't compete with the best except in IQ, value and a few unique features that many might feel that they could do without in the face of superior AF etc.. I don't think that Pentax would survive if a significant proportion of their top lenses were available in different mounts - there wouldn't be a sufficiently strong reason to buy Pentax bodies.

I agree, Pentax's roots are those of an optics company. But that was a few transplantings ago and these days I'd guess that hardly anyone understands or appreciates this point. Just a few aficionados and long-term Pentax fans. It's probably the same story with the other main, traditional camera companies. I don't think selling lenses for other mounts makes any sense really, and in fact this may not be possible anyway because Pentax don't have a large enough and expert enough optical engineering department for the job, not these days. What I'm seeing on this thread is that doing deals and pooling development is the most sensible way of keeping down costs (and headcount) as the great DSLR rundown gets underway over the next few years. Better to put the money into whatever starts to succeed the DSLR - and the selling points for a lot of that will be technology, convenience/integration and style come fashion. We all love optical excellence but I fear we are a distinct and rapidly fading minority. Even quite good websites these days see optical qualities in very basic terms: is it sharp across the frame and is the bokeh OK? Yes? Pass!". Forget that the item feels grim in the hand, the movement is scratchy, it doesn't pop and renders like a headache.

[Mistral75]

Why doesn't Tokina sell those primes as AF versions for Canon and Nikon then? I am sure they would sell a hell of a lot more than making a few hundred for Pentax. (...)

One reason could be the scarcity of the financial resources available to Tokina. Having a third party ready to fund part of the development costs significantly reduces the burden and accelerates the development of the lenses (remember, three Vista lenses launched simultaneously, two more said to follow shortly but still not available).

Besides, the two options can be combined:

• development phase: cost sharing
• commercial phase 1: Tokina sells the cinema version and the co-developer has the exclusivity of the photo version
• commercial phase 2: Tokina is allowed to sell Canon and Nikon versions of the photo lens.

---------- Post added 09-25-2017 at 01:37 PM ----------

It's perfectly plausible that Pentax have done a deal with Tokina for three new FF prime lenses derived from these new cinema lenses. Plausible - but no more than 100 per cent speculation until more details emerge. If "a few hundred" really is the total Pentax market for the new FF primes, then sharing development costs with another outfit rather than going it alone could make a great deal of sense. It would be a surprise if a deal hadn't been done, in those circumstances. But as of now, and beyond saying there is plenty of precedent for this, we just don't know. (...)

@Mistral: yes, a collaboration is possible (I see it as Pentax/Ricoh sharing their optical designs with Tokina), but then it could also be a coincidence - as those are really standard lenses.
I'm not rejecting any possibility, we just need more data.

Exactly. For the time being, it's just a conjecture (rather than "100 per cent. speculation" ).

[bxf]

Wow, those are some of the ugliest lenses I've seen. I'm sure they are great to use, but I don't like their look at all.

Made mostly for videographers.

That explains the ugliness, I suppose

[Winder]

Tokina Vista 35mm T/1.5, 50mm T/1.5 and 85mm T/1.5.

Do these focal lengths and this aperture (= f/1.4) ring a bell?

TOKINA CINEMA ATX

Those are the 3 most common prime focal lengths, so I don't think it means anything.

They are also manual focus lenses and you can't simply convert manual focus lenses over to AF and get good results unless you are going back to screw drive and really loosen up the gear system. You can't have any dampening at all. Tokina may be the company designing the new lenses, but I don't think they will be AF versions of the Cine lenses.