[Serkevan]

Not really; AFAIK there is no mention of Tamron's involvement in the lens design. A customization would call it something like Pentax x Tamron or Pentax Custom or Special K
As it stands, it's more like a licensing, I agree.

---------- Post added 01-28-20 at 09:12 AM ----------

Could you please provide an example where everything remained exactly the same on the lens except the brand badge?

It's actually pretty typical for old lenses. I had a two-ring Tokina RMC 70-210/3.5 that also appears branded as Soligor. Even the engraving on the distance scale is the same colour.
This also applies (that I have personally seen) to the Exakta 24/2.8, which is a Cosina-made lens. There are many other examples of that vintage.

[FozzFoster]

I guess I consider it similar to this:
The Pentax F 50mm f/1.7 is "Optically the lens is the same as its A-series predecessor".
However, the F version has autofocus and probably somewhat updated coatings...
But it's considered, optically, the same lens.

Tamron created the optical formula for the 70-210.
Pentax bought the license for the 70-210, added some minor customization, and put their brand on it...
Optically, they should perform as the same lens (sure the coatings might cut some flare...... but that really feels like a split hair).

And not only is it optically the same lens, but it probably has the "same barrel design, same mount type, same weight (minus VC), same gasket sealing position, same hood, same switch position, same AF motor type." With the differences (customization) being "coatings, focus limiter."

Sounds like a rebrand to me.

[Kunzite]

I personally do not believe the differences are substantial enough to not be called a rebrand.

Perhaps it's a rebrand with some minor customization... :P

Well, if they used different types of glass, if the coatings are different, then there's the baffle (at least one)...
I'd call it a rebrand if they only did the minimum to fit a Pentax K mount. I'd call it a customization of they did more.

[Wheatfield]

You're not a good student, if you only study the failures.
In Pentax/Asahi Optical's history there are many things to be proud of.
Then there's the matter of continuing the Pentax product lines - without which the Pentax brand makes no sense.

Sure there are many firsts that Pentax did, and then didn't capitalize on, and many things to be proud of that didn't exactly bear fruit.
At the end, their failures outweighed their successes and the company failed.
Ricoh is not Pentax. Thankfully they seem committed to continuing to make cameras and lenses that use the K-Mount. They have, however, indicated where the future is, and that is not screw drive lenses.
Lets face it, if they were 100% committed to supporting old gear, they would have brought back the aperture simulator.
I expect that within a couple of model cycles, their entry level will drop support for screw drive AF.

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-28-2020 at 10:03 AM. Reason: Removed unnecessary comment

[Kunzite]

Sure there are many firsts that Pentax did, and then didn't capitalize on, and many things to be proud of that didn't exactly bear fruit.
At the end, their failures outweighed their successes and the company failed.
Ricoh is not Pentax. Thankfully they seem committed to continuing to make cameras and lenses that use the K-Mount. They have, however, indicated where the future is, and that is not screw drive lenses.
Lets face it, if they were 100% committed to supporting old gear, they would have brought back the aperture simulator.
I expect that within a couple of model cycles, their entry level will drop support for screw drive AF.

I'm definitely not happy with everything Asahi Optical/Pentax Corporation did. My point is, that Ricoh being aware of Pentax' legacy is not a bad thing at all - but quite a positive one. The trick is to preserve the good things, not the bad ones

Nobody says they're (or should be) "100% committed to supporting old gear". We know Asahi Optical/Pentax Corporation wasn't. But the support is functional.
However, there are 21 screw-drive AF lenses in the current lens line:
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/products/lens/images/K_Mount_Lens.pdf
Some serious replacement needs to happen, before cutting the in-body AF motor. "Nikon did it" is not good enough.

[Mistral75]

You shouldn’t take this personally- I am an Analytical Chemist that has spent a lot of time in the pharmaceutical industry. I expect documentation.

You provided enough with the first roadmap. Thanks.

You're welcome. Next time, you might envisage to be a bit more 'symmetrical' and, being an analytical chemist, extend this documentation expectation to preliminary evidence supporting your own conjectures.

HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm f/4 ED SDM WR - Page 43 - PentaxForums.com

[Reed]

Baffle on the lens mount would probably interfere with internal stabilisation. Most lenses with IS have a very large opening from the mount side, maybe there must be a bit bigger image circle provided to compensate movable stabilised group.

[bladerunner6]

You're welcome. Next time, you might envisage to be a bit more 'symmetrical' and, being an analytical chemist, extend this documentation expectation to preliminary evidence supporting your own conjectures.

HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm f/4 ED SDM WR - Page 43 - PentaxForums.com

As I labeled it completely as conjecture that really doesn’t apply.

Now if I had stated it as fact that would be a entirely different.

[Riddler]

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[angerdan]

However, there are 21 screw-drive AF lenses in the current lens line:
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/products/lens/images/K_Mount_Lens.pdf

In the lens search here are 32 lenses with srewdrive AF:
Lenses with Screwdrive Autofocus | PentaxForums.com

[normhead]

Nice, I'd love to test shoot one against my 60-250. No one ever sends me lenses unless I pay for them.

Full size images will be coming at some point. Looking at video full screen just isn't the same thing.

[biz-engineer]

Full size images will be coming at some point. Looking at video full screen just isn't the same thing.

Some people are said to be like St Peter, they only believe what they can see with their own eyes.

My take on that D-FA 70-210 lens, after having browsed throught a hundred of lens test charts, of M43 lenses, APSC lenses, FF lenses and MF lenses, I bet is going to be sharp in the center @ about 45lpmm and about 30lpmm in the outer region.

When looking at hundred of charts, I realized a few things:
- the really cheap lenses tend to have poor corners, compare to mid-range and high-end lenses
- a lot of primes lenses are no better in corners than good zooms, it's just that primes are smaller and faster. The prime is make for making bokeh, more than it is made for shooting between f8 and f16, so I guess that's why prime lens designers don't care about corner sharpness on primes.
- some of the expensive lenses are no better than average priced lenses (double price lenses aren't twice as good as half price lenses, often the double price lens is only a little better)
- some high brand lenses (Zeiss, etc) may be sharper , but not as much sharper as the price premium might indicate at first sight (basically you pay some money for the Zeiss label on the lens barel)


Last but not least, MTF charts all look about the same regardless of the format, I wondered why it is so, if the FF lens is tack sharp on a crop, why the apsc lens isn't ? I can up with an answer for myself that is: all lenses are cost-size-weight tradeoff so that they are acceptable sharp and based on competing next format.

No worry, no miracles expected either, almost every lens is sharp in the center and drop to about half sharpness in corned. On full frame, even 25lpmm is good enough to deliver 8Mpixels equivalent in corners, no one see the difference between two lenses on a large 4K monitor view at diagonal of display distance.

[Kunzite]

In the lens search here are 32 lenses with srewdrive AF:
Lenses with Screwdrive Autofocus | PentaxForums.com

Several of those lenses have in-lens AF motors, and I don't think all of them are current.

[reh321]

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/products/lens/images/K_Mount_Lens.pdf
Some serious replacement needs to happen, before cutting the in-body AF motor. "Nikon did it" is not good enough.

Body engineering might be a reason for eliminating the in-body AF motor, but I don't see it as a good reason either.

For Nikon, their decision to not support it in their F-to-Z adapter has forced the issue, since they still have screw-drive lenses on the market; if there is still any thinking of Pentax's supporting a new MILC line, I would expect that to be the primary motivation toward replacing those lenses.

[robjmitchell]

What is the definition of a rebrand then.

For those people , who believe this is a rebrand , can they prove it.

I consider a rebrand to be lenses made by tamron for pentax brand, even if pentax puts the propriety lens coating on then ships it back.
A licensed product would be Pentax/Ricoh purchasing the optical formula and manufacturing it from scratch themselves.
For cost convenience they may also be sourcing parts from tamron or their suppliers.

The key difference is where the profits flow to and who has control of the manufacturing process and timeline.