[MMVIII]

Hopefully, the 35mm and the 24mm will be slightly "imperfect" affordable DFA lenses.

Now, why would they? The HD PENTAX-FA 35 mm F2 AL is available now since February 2019 - what's wrong with it?

[mee]

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.

No corner test here, but edges is decent enough of a test imo from Tamron 70-210mm f/4 Di VC USD Review | ePHOTOzine


70mm @ f/4:




210mm @ f/4:



Looks really decent to me.


I have no idea what the corners show comparatively, but on edges it looks sharp. The Pentax version can only be (slightly) better.. not less.

[TwoUptons]

Now, why would they? The HD PENTAX-FA 35 mm F2 AL is available now since February 2019 - what's wrong with it?

It’s slightly imperfect

-Eric

[Paul the Sunman]

It’s slightly imperfect

-Eric

Persian rug weavers are said to introduce deliberate imperfections into their work, since only God is perfect. I suspect Pentax does the same.

[rawr]

Daily reminder that all lpm test charts are 2D & flat. And most of the photo subjects one will encounter in the world are not.

[Paul the Sunman]

Daily reminder that all lpm test charts are 2D & flat. And most of the photo subjects one will encounter in the world are not.

Then the world is imperfect.

[thibs]

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.

Following jour logic the Tokina 50-135/2.8 would be a rebrand. It's not. At all.

[reh321]

Following jour logic the Tokina 50-135/2.8 would be a rebrand. It's not. At all.

Why is everyone so concerned about rebranding? As long as Pentax adds to their catalog, that should be good enough.

[Batman_]

It's a bit more than just a re-brand.

We get:
- Focus limiter;
- Pentax lens coatings (assumption);
- Pentax lens corrections (assumption);
- 100% AF compatibility (as opposed to reverse-engineered AF).

We lose:
Image stabilization.

It's a bit more than a re-brand. Maybe not much but there is still a difference.

[thibs]

Why is everyone so concerned about rebranding? As long as Pentax adds to their catalog, that should be good enough.

I don't care a damn but I hate FUD.

I very much welcome this lens. Who knows, maybe I might get one.

[Paul the Sunman]

I very much welcome this lens. Who knows, maybe I might get one.

Yes, it looks like a cracker of a lens. I don't think I could justify owning both this and the DFA* 70-200, so I doubt I would buy it. But good luck to all the Pentaxians who do.

[Sandy Hancock]

For me, the DA* 60-250 has nice (really good in fact) image quality, but the flakey AF, zoom extension/creep and focus breathing really irritate me.

This new lens addresses all three. And it's 220g lighter. And it's *really* full frame. With a focus limiter.

I'll wait for the dust to settle, but I can see my medium telephoto needs getting a lot simpler.

[thibs]

Yes, it looks like a cracker of a lens. I don't think I could justify owning both this and the DFA* 70-200, so I doubt I would buy it. But good luck to all the Pentaxians who do.

If I can get an acceptable price out of my 50-135... and a KAF4 compatible cam.

[MMVIII]

As a not native speaker I try to grasp the semantics of the words. Rebranding is, by the examples at Rebrand | Definition of Rebrand by Merriam-Webster and at wikipedia (supported by a view at urban dictionary for a more colloquial use) a term that is applied to brands. Mainly it is used as a strategy to counter negative associations with a brand or to move a brand upmarket.

I somehow can associate it with the use for product rebranding where (electronic) equipment, that is produced by OEM (in most cases considered being based in China) is taken by different companies to be "branded" to be sold under their label. Often these are completely identical and just show a different name on a label.

But why would I want to use this term for a lens like this? If Ricoh decides to include a new lens in the portfolio they might have several options to achieve that. They can assign an inhouse design team to do the calculations for the optical construction, the AF-system and the barrel, to build a prototype, test it, order the glass, produce the lens elements, coat them, assemble the production line, assure quality control, marketing etc. They might also have the possibility to assign all or some of these tasks to indepent specialists, or a third party manufacturer. We might assume that these decisions have not been set final at the time when this desired lens has been put on the roadmap the first time. At least there are some good hints that some of the plans have changed. If a business calculation showed that the goals of the product can be reached by outsorcing some of the steps they might have gone this route. An inhouse optical calculation might have not added anything to a more optimal final product than the use of a third party. Now probably many of the other steps follow suite, and some adaptions are made, like the change of the optical group responsible for VR in the portfolio of the third party manufacturer and some additional measures to optimize flare resistance, the focussing by including a limiter etc.

As far as I understand this is normal 21st century manufacturing behaviour and it might be just more obvious, as the outer shape of the lens has been used of the existing form, but this might have been just economic.

Long story short, rebranding seems to normally be used in a derogatory way for trying to hide faults associate with a brand or for existing (mainly cheap) products that are just branded to be sold upmarket. I think this does not apply, so why should it be used here?

It's a bit more than just a re-brand.

We get:
- Focus limiter;
- Pentax lens coatings (assumption);
- Pentax lens corrections (assumption);
- 100% AF compatibility (as opposed to reverse-engineered AF).

We lose:
Image stabilization.

It's a bit more than a re-brand. Maybe not much but there is still a difference.

[Sandy Hancock]

Frankly, the whole rebranding argument is a load of nonsense.
It's a very capable lens which fills a long-awaited niche in the Pentax stable. Why is there so much acrimony?