Originally posted by 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.
I must have a different sense of logic, I don't find it logical at all. Did Pentax have some say about the optical formula of the 12-24/4? If so, what was the point of licensing the design? Pentax already had an in-house 12-24 design (a variable aperture design).
If you read the write-ups at pentax.com and Jun Hirakawa's white paper on the FA 77, Pentax has a specific imaging philosophy that sets it apart from the mainstream trends in the camera industry, which emphasize camera specs and numerical tests at the expense of subjective aesthetic judgment and appreciation. This places Pentax at odds with the review community, which, generally speaking, worships technology for technology's sake and is in the tank for numerical specs. I don't expect the review community to ever be completely fair to Pentax because (1) the review community doesn't understand what Pentax is trying to accomplish (i.e., Pentax's imaging philosophy); and (2) to the extent that the review community is capable of understanding Pentax's imaging philosophy, they would be inclined to disagree with and oppose it.
Pentax and Tokina don't have the same imaging design philosophy. Pentax, when designing lenses that are supposed to express their imaging philosophy (namely, star and limited lenses), are not going to compromise the philosophy behind their top lenses by collaborating with a company that does not share their vision.