[HYS]

I'm pretty sure you are wrong. The DFA100WR is the same optical formula as its F and FA predecessors, only the barrel design has changed.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Yes, I can be wrong. But can anybody cite the patent of this lens ( D FA 100/2.8 macro)? Personally I couldn't find it.

[Sandy Hancock]

Yes, I can be wrong. But can anybody cite the patent of this lens ( D FA 50/2.8 macro)? Personally I couldn't find it.

You claimed that the SMC Pentax-D FA 1:2.8 100mm macro WR was a Tokina design. What does the provenance of the SMC Pentax-D FA 1:2.8 50mm macro have to do with that?

Extraordinary claims require evidence to back them up.

[Kunzite]

Yes, I can be wrong. But can anybody cite the patent of this lens ( D FA 100/2.8 macro)? Personally I couldn't find it.

But can you cite a patent of this lens, belonging to Tokina?
If not, you're using double standards i.e. you feel you can freely claim that it's a Tokina design, but others who say it's a Pentax must bring proof.

[HYS]

You claimed that the SMC Pentax-D FA 1:2.8 100mm macro WR was a Tokina design. What does the provenance of the SMC Pentax-D FA 1:2.8 50mm macro have to do with that?

Extraordinary claims require evidence to back them up.

Sorry! It was a mistyping..


By the way I have found in my files the mentioned patent. And not only.
100/2.8 WR : patent US4770516

50/2.8 Macro : patent US4923292
So I was really wrong! Sorry.

[Sandy Hancock]

So I was really wrong! Sorry.

Apology accepted. Perhaps you could edit your misleading post - DPR might quote you

Once done, I'll delete my responses

[HYS]

Apology accepted. Perhaps you could edit your misleading post - DPR might quote you

Once done, I'll delete my responses

Its OK ! I liked this talk and probably it'll be useful for somebody else. Please don't delete responses!
I was just curious where I came across with the statement I cited above. But surely somewhere in internet !

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I'm not a lens designer, or engineer of any sort, but I would have thought that a great many non-glass aspects of a lens flow from the optical design - this would be especially true of a lens hood of the petal variety which either is or is not optimised for the field of view of the lens (particularly a prime). But the motor has to be of the same or near the same power and the length and girth of the lens ore largely by-products of the glass elements.they contain and move.

Here you can see how very different the 2 companies go about build a lens around the same optical formula.


Things like out how they decide MF can greatly change how the barrel will be design, the above lenses tokina uses a slide in and out focus ring while pentax did not, these sort of thing go into how the lens barrel will look.

---------- Post added 08-12-2018 at 02:16 AM ----------

I think there is a lot to indicate this was developed by Pentax and later licensed to Tokina.

It very well could be but every other lens they had done this with look vastly different so I suspect that it is more than a simply licensing of an optical formula that was done, in past If we look at the 16-50 a lens licensed by tokina they are very different right down to the motors used.

---------- Post added 08-12-2018 at 02:23 AM ----------

The Tokina on the other hand only has only four screws. I don't know how significant that is, but it indicates the way it's put together is different.

You have to be careful as with many pentax lenses some of those screws are used to hold or make the contacts around the electronics more secure.
At lot of time with pentax and how they are assembled the have a base plate that the lens mount is secured to one of the lenses that I have seen had 5 screws going into it while only 3 or 4 screws hold that base plate to the lens body

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

here you can see with the 16-50 2.8 there is only 4 screws that make their way into the main chassis of the lens.

whereas with the lenses I have seen apart from tokina they forgo the plate and directly go thru right into the lens body

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

This is very similar to what I see with other tokina lenses I have seen apart

---

Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 08-12-2018 at 02:27 AM.

[Kunzite]

Maybe Tokina just lost much of their capacity to design and introduce new lenses, and have to rely on Pentax/Ricoh to a higher degree than in the past?
I don't get why some people always assume the weaker one is Pentax.

[ffking]

Here you can see how very different the 2 companies go about build a lens around the same optical formula.


Things like out how they decide MF can greatly change how the barrel will be design, the above lenses tokina uses a slide in and out focus ring while pentax did not, these sort of thing go into how the lens barrel will look.

Your point being, if I understand you correctly, that a similarity in the (other than cosmetic) appearance of two lenses necessarily implies a greater degree of co-design than a simple licensing out of the optical formula? Having a (distant) background in evolutionary biology, I have a tendency to expect appearances to become more similar as they approach optimality for a given task (like cars designed to minimise drag) - form follows function, if you like - but yes, there might be more than one optimal SET of solutions, and design is more plastic than biology, so I can see that my mindset might be misleading in this

[Rondec]

Here you can see how very different the 2 companies go about build a lens around the same optical formula.


Things like out how they decide MF can greatly change how the barrel will be design, the above lenses tokina uses a slide in and out focus ring while pentax did not, these sort of thing go into how the lens barrel will look.

---------- Post added 08-12-2018 at 02:16 AM ----------



It very well could be but every other lens they had done this with look vastly different so I suspect that it is more than a simply licensing of an optical formula that was done, in past If we look at the 16-50 a lens licensed by tokina they are very different right down to the motors used.

---------- Post added 08-12-2018 at 02:23 AM ----------



You have to be careful as with many pentax lenses some of those screws are used to hold or make the contacts around the electronics more secure.
At lot of time with pentax and how they are assembled the have a base plate that the lens mount is secured to one of the lenses that I have seen had 5 screws going into it while only 3 or 4 screws hold that base plate to the lens body

Pentax DA* 16-50 SDM failure - DIY reparatie (met goed resultaat) - YouTube

here you can see with the 16-50 2.8 there is only 4 screws that make their way into the main chassis of the lens.

whereas with the lenses I have seen apart from tokina they forgo the plate and directly go thru right into the lens body
Is Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro lens worth it? TEARDOWN & Review - YouTube
This is very similar to what I see with other tokina lenses I have seen apart

Does the fact that the Tamron 15-30 and the Pentax 15-30 look as similar as they do imply that Pentax co-designed the 15-30 with Tamron? The answer is clearly no. Tamron completely designed it and in fact, manufactures it to Pentax's specifications. Similarity does not indicate that something is co-designed and in fact, Tokina is probably following very closely on Pentax's design because it saves considerable time and effort on their part. Why re-invent the wheel?

On a side note, DP Review's splitting up a non-review, article into twelve parts, each with a small paragraph of writing on it is really annoying. I understand the buzz-feedization of journalism where you sell advertising on multiple pages and just put a photo with minimal information on it on each page, but it certainly isn't an enjoyable style to read.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Your point being, if I understand you correctly, that a similarity in the (other than cosmetic) appearance of two lenses necessarily implies a greater degree of co-design than a simple licensing out of the optical formula?

That is correct right down to pentax allowing tokina to use the same lens hood with access port on the bottom. And if you look at the access port both have the same amount of groves that supply friction for the user to grip, and right down to the triangle and its placement.

Also if you look at the end of the lens you can see that they both use identical land and grove that is beveled



Ignore the circles

With every other tokina including the new 20's the use a square design and also where the land and groves start is different from any other tokina I have looked at. With tokina they start at around 45 degrees while the 50 starts dead center at the top



I have this feeling that if it was any other camera company lets say Leica that pentax was contributing, co designing or sharing more than just an optical design with the tone on this forum would be vastly different

I have nothing against tokina, if pentax co what with the 16-28 that this lens would have taken a lot of the spot light of the tamron 15-30 had along with being released 5 +- year earlier.
Tokina also really over builds lens barrel and a lot of the structural parts of the lens

---------- Post added 08-12-2018 at 03:02 AM ----------

Does the fact that the Tamron 15-30 and the Pentax 15-30 look as similar as they do imply that Pentax co-designed the 15-30 with Tamron? The answer is clearly no. Tamron completely designed it and in fact, manufactures it to Pentax's specifications. Similarity does not indicate that something is co-designed and in fact, Tokina is probably following very closely on Pentax's design because it saves considerable time and effort on their part. Why re-invent the wheel?

Yes and no but when we have someone with some insight to the lens says "Co designed in Tokyo."

Re: Pentax DFA* 50mm F1.4 looks similar to Tokina 50mm F1.4: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Who then goes on to show us a image of the new lens motor found in this lens, months prior to even pentax releasing any hint of what is found under the hood.


Here is a leaked image of the motor that was quickly taken down


I would say that it tips the odds that his use of the words "Co design in Tokyo" that they know something more than the average person on the net

[Kunzite]

Ian, this is getting tiresome - what exactly are you trying to "prove"?
The entire post is:

Co designed in Tokyo.

Patented by Pentax Ricoh ,my currently information about the new 50.

The development team belonging the master of the great *2.8 70-200.

Best regards

Not clear what co designed means, but we do know that Pentax/Ricoh was heavily involved in the optical and mechanical design. You also observed the Pentax-style hood...

The motor is most likely sourced from the same manufacturer. So what?

[Rondec]

Ian, this is getting tiresome - what exactly are you trying to "prove"?
The entire post is:

Not clear what co designed means, but we do know that Pentax/Ricoh was heavily involved in the optical and mechanical design. You also observed the Pentax-style hood...

The motor is most likely sourced from the same manufacturer. So what?

I believe he is trying to prove that Pentax needed Tokina's help to design this lens.

I think the point is clear that cosmetically, the Tokina looks like a Pentax lens and not vice versa. The lens motor is not produced by Tokina, there are a limited number of companies who make lens motors and so it isn't surprising that they would use the same source that Tokina uses. It is like saying that Pentax and Nikon both use shutters made by the same company therefore they must be co-designing camera bodies.

It really isn't important. The majority of the lens was designed by Pentax and licensing fees will be paid to Pentax, which they wouldn't have been if Tokina and Pentax mutually held patents and had truly "co-designed" the lens. It feels very much as though people (who don't shoot Pentax) are trying to steal Pentax's glory in what would be an otherwise exceptional lens release.

Edit: It is interesting as well that over on DP Review, Ian comments that, " I also have a feeling that pentax no longer has the capacity to apply lens coatings and is having Hoya doing the processing for pentax using pentax coatings." Which seems ludicrous to me. Coatings are huge for Pentax and yes, they have made investment in the machines necessary to apply them.

[D1N0]

If they were going to license it to Tokina from the start, then it is logical that Tokina also had some say about the optical formula. Hence co-designed. I think this was done to share development costs. It is costly to develop new lenses and Pentax isn't going to sell a whole lot on their own. Tokina can sell them to Canonikon users which their are a whole lot more of than Pentaxians.

[ffking]

If they were going to license it to Tokina from the start, then it is logical that Tokina also had some say about the optical formula. Hence co-designed. I think this was done to share development costs

That would be a business decision - you can share development costs and get less revenue for licensing the optical formula, or bear the cost yourself and get a higher licence fee - I really don't think we can know which way they jumped on that one