[Serkevan]

Wow. I like your reading comprehention :/
You might try to re read that again...

He's gonna come up with the same, don't bother.

[Madaboutpix]

In an ideal world, they would perhaps have redesigned the lens with more aperture blades for nicer sunbursts, but then it would have had to be more pricey, I guess.

I, for one, am ready to embrace it for what it is IMO, a timely update to an old favourite, and a signal that Ricoh intends to keep its DA line alive. As I do a lot of work against backlight or with the sun in the frame, the new HD coatings are definitely welcome. Perhaps not my highest priority for the next lens purchase, considering that the smc version continues to give me so many keepers and I am still without a 100-mil macro lens, but it is still tempting.

[Kunzite]

It is not: designed by Pentax, redesigned by Ricoh Imaging, built by Ricoh Imaging.

Just to be clear, you're saying it is not a mystery - and that it is, in fact, all the things you're mentioning (designed by Pentax, redesigned by Ricoh Imaging, built by Ricoh Imaging)
Because nitpickers like me might read your post

---------- Post added 09-07-19 at 11:07 AM ----------

I didn't see this posted:
Featured02?HD PENTAX-DA FISH-EYE10-17mmF3.5-4.5ED? | About HD Coating / Lenses / Products | RICOH IMAGING

[Sandy Hancock]

It’s even up for pre-order on the Pentax Australia website.
Trigger pulled. Even though I already have the SMC version. It’s going to be so much more fun on the K-1

[BruceBanner]

The comment of mine that you quoted is about a different lens though Eddy

Apologies Sandy, I'm skim reading all of this.

There is the case of vignetting from hood purely and some that even with the hood gone there is still some that is not correctable in PP.

The FA ltds for example vignette massively wide open on FF, but its correctable in PP. Whereas other glass I have (20-40 for example) seems to vignette the same or less even at some apertures and focal lengths, yet it is never utterly completely correctable in PP.

So it's a funny thing to me this 'FF compatible' because you could argue the case that if not doing any lens correction in post processing that some non FF lenses are actually vignetting less than some genuine FF glass. All I care about really is the correction of vignette from a crop lens on FF, how well can it be corrected, as well as a FA ltd getting cleaned up in PP or not?

Then of course however is the subject of whether the correction takes something away. I almost never correct FA Ltds, there's something charming about their rendering when left unchecked. I might do a little of my own lens correction but rarely do I use the actual proper lens correction tool (landscape shots would be the exception).

Be interesting to see how it does on a K-1. I seem to be collecting a few DA Lenses that are performing ok on FF as that's kinda more at my budget that the * rated premium stuff.

[Mistral75]

It is still a mystery whether the lens is built/design by Tokina.

It is not: designed by Pentax, redesigned by Ricoh Imaging, built by Ricoh Imaging.

Just to be clear, you're saying it is not a mystery - and that it is, in fact, all the things you're mentioning (designed by Pentax, redesigned by Ricoh Imaging, built by Ricoh Imaging)
Because nitpickers like me might read your post

Nitpickers like you should have noticed the column between 'not' and 'designed'.

To be in line with the eyesight of the (older than average) Pentax users:

It is not [a mystery]: designed by Pentax, redesigned by Ricoh Imaging, built by Ricoh Imaging.

[Kunzite]

After the column there's a list

[BruceBanner]

It’s even up for pre-order on the Pentax Australia website.
Trigger pulled. Even though I already have the SMC version. It’s going to be so much more fun on the K-1

Excellent, feel free to tag me or whatever when those images start making their way on your Flickr (in case I miss them), I'm super keen to see your results.

[totsmuyco]

No WR? Hmmm, are you guys sure this is a Pentax lens?

[Larrymc]

More images and info here. (Japanese)
???????? HD PENTAX-DA FISH-EYE10-17mm F3.5-4.5 ED ?????? - ??????????by????????

There’s a lot information on full frame coverage with and without the hood, but I haven’t had time to read it yet.

Nifty looking Hot Shoe cover on the K-1II in those photos of the revamped 10-17 Fish Eye. Wonder where one can get one of these?

[Larrymc]

No WR? Hmmm, are you guys sure this is a Pentax lens?

The original DA version was not WR either. Easy remedy, don't get it wet and you won't have problems with moisture ingress.

[Rico]

Wow. I like your reading comprehention :/
You might try to re read that again...

I don't think it is my reading comprehension that is the problem. It is clearly your writing skills that lack coherence.

[Serkevan]

I don't think it is my reading comprehension that is the problem. It is clearly your writing skills that lack coherence.

Several other people understood him perfectly. It is quite obvious that his problem is not the absence or presence of quick-shift per se, but the fact that the focus ring rotates during autofocus (which means he cannot rest his fingers over the focus ring).

[Rico]

I have been shooting my DA*55 on the K-1 for over three years. It is excellent, but not perfect. In some instances there is a small hard vignette in the corners, even without the hood. I always use the hood anyway.

The PF unofficial testing says the vignetting happens wide open at ƒ1.4. How many stops down that it goes away isn't clear to me. PF gives it an A rating beyond wide open. Those three K-1 DA*55 user reviews all say don't use the hood which is the reason the hood should be made to be usable on the K-1. Best case the lenses itself should be made to not vignette on the K-1 at all. Ricoh/Pentax just "tweaked" the hood on the DA10-17 to work better with the K-1 so let's hope they will eventually do the same for the DA*55.

I have considered this lenses except for these problems which has held me off from getting it. It is good to know that outside wide open which I will most likely never be photographing at the DA*55 is excellent on FF. I think 55mm serves well for both FF and APS-C.

Ricoh/Pentax revamping the DA10-17 is the right step for the road map. I don't think the revamp of the FA35 was the right direction. Revamping the DA35 to work on FF that would be the right direction. Ricoh/Pentax should have one lens line that works both on FF and APS-C. Obviously the extreme wide angle is the exception. Still the DA14 is a probable candidate for "revamping" to FF.

[RonHendriks1966]

Still the DA14 is a probable candidate for "revamping" to FF.

That lens won't work proparly on fullframe.