[biz-engineer]

I don't care either these days as long as it performs well. And Tamron does have some Pentax lens knowledge under the roof in a former Pentax designer. So that 24-70mm might very well have had some Pentax insight baked into it.

It's not the fact of being a Tamron that bother people, it's to know that the lense basis originates from Tamron. Because no one could tell where a lens comes from by looking at pictures it takes. Not only that, but the fact is the lens is modified according to Pentax color specifications, Pentax flare resistance standard, and the lens is adapted on the mount, communication protocol with Pentax camera, and with in camera lens corrections the same as a lens fully designed by Ricoh. Oh! Did I say Ricoh? Yes, even if that 70-210 wasn't a Tamron rework, it wouldn't be designed by Pentax, it'd be design by Ricoh...it should be a Ricoh HD Fa 70-210 f4, because Pentax is not a company anymore, Pentax is brand name.

[zapp]

Ricoh has a camera maker reputation, also as brand. Combining Pentax brand under Ricoh‘s name does not sound smart, but would be typical for large companies.

[biz-engineer]

Ricoh has a camera maker reputation, also as brand. Combining Pentax brand under Ricoh‘s name does not sound smart, but would be typical for large companies.

I wonder if my DFA28-105 was design by Ricoh lens designers! If this is true, I can't believe that rebadge the Ricoh lens into a Pentax one. If I knew it was a Ricoh lens and not a Pentax, I'd never buy it

[Mistral75]

Ricoh has a camera maker reputation, also as brand. Combining Pentax brand under Ricoh‘s name does not sound smart, but would be typical for large companies.

Actually Ricoh put the Pentax brand on the same level as their other photographic brands: GR, Theta, WG and G.

Brand | RICOH IMAGING

[noelpolar]

Since this has become a bit of a dreamy thread.... I want a Pentax version of a Leica SL2 for $2,500..... and I'd even scrounge up US dollars for one.

[Kunzite]

it should be a Ricoh HD Fa 70-210 f4, because Pentax is not a company anymore, Pentax is brand name.

What is a brand, then, if companies shouldn't use brands to name their product lines?

[Paul the Sunman]

It is odd that this seems to be the most requested lens, yet Ricoh still hasn't delivered. Back when the K-1 was first launched it was one of the more requested lenses. Today, 4 years later, it still is.

For such a landscape oriented camera as the K-1, it does make me wonder too why the UWA prime hasn't had more priority.

Indeed! I love the 15-30, but I wouldn't have bought it if there had been a FF DFA 20ish. As it is, the 15-30 doesn't get packed as often as I'd like, because of its size, so a compact UW prime would still be on my to-buy list. The lens roadmap doesn't inspire confidence that one is anywhere near ready; it still shows as anywhere between 12 and 25 mm! If that's the most precise they can be, I'm guessing it's no more than a sketch on the back of a pizza box.

[WorksAsIntended]

Dfa 50 1.4 does not make sense to me. There are already the 50 1.8 for entry level and the premium DFA*.
The old FA50 design is just too soft to be released again and even more so if they need to invest in changing the production process.

I see three things missing that have been rumoured for a while but not named by Pentax: standard zoom for aps-c at f2.8 and fast wide angle primes (35mm, 24mm).

About the Pentax-DNA in the Tamron 24-70: for me Pentax always was about the rendering of out of focus planes and especially the rendering of the plane which is just oof. The Tamron is sharp, no question, but the Bokeh is not as good as what the (more expensive) competition offers. It suffers too much from Fresnel diffraction causing concentric rings over and over. It still has a good price value ratio and it is capable of handling most situations, but it is pretty much the exact opposite of what a Pentax lense design used to be in my opinion: rendering priofity over sharpness.

[lukulele]

What is a brand, then, if companies shouldn't use brands to name their product lines?

I appreciate the Shakespearean turn of a phrase.

[BigMackCam]

The old FA50 design is just too soft to be released again and even more so if they need to invest in changing the production process.

At f/1.4 it's soft and has busy out-of-focus rendering, but it quickly benefits by stopping down (actually, the HD FA35/2 - whilst sharp enough wide open - benefits similarly by stopping down just one third of a stop). The DA50/1.8 is a decent little lens, but is only full frame "compatible" at certain aperture settings - so there's still a market, IMHO, for an everyman's full frame, auto-focus fast fifty. On that basis, it could be worth refreshing the FA50/1.4. I'd buy one at the right price to pair with my HD FA35...

[WorksAsIntended]

Even at f4 it is not as sharp as modern primes in the corner. I own the DFA* and a selected FA, the DFA* is sharper at f2 than the FA can get at any stop (sharpest around f4 to f5.6 in my experience).
It is absolutly good to have a small 50 1.4 in the lineup, but if they rework it and release it every reviewer will test it with modern high resolution sensors and compare it to modern designs. And there it cannot keep up anymore which will give them bad reviews. If they just keep the old one, nobody will complain as it is an old lense and there are modern alternatives.
Corner sharpness on aps-c was just ok, on fullframe it is way off.
I keep mine on the k3-ii as a very compact portait tele setup for the go.
I would rather expect a 50 1.7 rework as ff alternative to the 50 1.8

[BigMackCam]

Even at f4 it is not as sharp as modern primes in the corner. I own the DFA* and a selected FA, the DFA* is sharper at f2 than the FA can get at any stop (sharpest around f4 to f5.6 in my experience).
It is absolutly good to have a small 50 1.4 in the lineup, but if they rework it and release it every reviewer will test it with modern high resolution sensors and compare it to modern designs. And there it cannot keep up anymore which will give them bad reviews. If they just keep the old one, nobody will complain as it is an old lense and there are modern alternatives.
Corner sharpness on aps-c was just ok, on fullframe it is way off.
I keep mine on the k3-ii as a very compact portait tele setup for the go.
I would rather expect a 50 1.7 rework as ff alternative to the 50 1.8

This, really, is our difference. I'm very fond of vintage glass, and whilst I can certainly appreciate a lens that's sharp across the frame, it's not a pre-requisite for me. I don't even begin to compare the FA50/1.4 - or any older design, for that matter - to a modern, highly corrected (and premium) lens such as the DFA*50/1.4. That said, I understand why the FA50/1.4 might be showing its age just a little too much for full frame users. Like you, I use mine on APS-C, where I'm perfectly happy with it...

[Reed]

This, really, is our difference. I'm very fond of vintage glass, and whilst I can certainly appreciate a lens that's sharp across the frame, it's not a pre-requisite for me. I don't even begin to compare the FA50/1.4 - or any older design, for that matter - to a modern, highly corrected (and premium) lens such as the DFA*50/1.4. That said, I understand why the FA50/1.4 might be showing its age just a little too much for full frame users. Like you, I use mine on APS-C, where I'm perfectly happy with it...

I would be an early adopter of HD FA50/1.4 if it ever surfaces. I like vintage solutions, and just I like how those lenses render image. Still even minor tweak of aperture blades and coatings could grant this lens a new life. I have now HD FA 35/2 and IMO it's way better than original I had both in terms of build quality(my old FA35/2 was much more loose and plasticky in feel than HD is), and there is a lot of improvement in contrast. AF speed seems to be the same, but I can say that accuracy with new one is better, probably because of the lens being from new production run and fresh lube, no micro-adjustment needed on both my camereas, while old one was sitting on different values body dependent. It is also definitely more damped on focusing ring, much alike my lenses with quick shifts such as HD DA40/2.8. I'm perfectly fine with that lens on FF.

[Rondec]

Pentax definitely doesn't need another 50mm lens. Currently by my count they have the FA 50 f1.4, FA 43 limited, DFA *50, DFA 50 macro, and DA *55, all of which cover 35mm pretty decently. Most of those will benefit from being stopped down a bit, but I think most price ranges in that focal length are covered. And if you need cheap there are older, used 50s out there that could work too.

I was looking at the lens map and there are six future K mount lenses listed there: a DA "standard zoom" which seems roughly to go from 16-50, an ultra wide angle prime between 15 and 25mm focal length (20 f2.8?), a large aperture wide angle prime somewhere in the 25 to 40mm range(the last of the DFA * primes -- looks like a 35mm f1.4), the DFA 70-210 (which is now here), the DFA *85, and the telephoto zoom (looks like 70-300 variable aperture zoom).

That leaves four other lenses, which one or two might be 645 lenses (is the 645 project still alive?). The other lenses I think would be helpful are a couple of f4 zooms for 35 mm -- something in the 28-70 range and something in the 24-110 range (maybe there's too much overlap between those two lenses, but seems like they'd hit very different price points). The DA *16-50 and 50-135 really could use improving too, with at a minimum new auto focus motors. A DC driven 50-135 would be an awfully sweet lens to pair with a K-new and its new auto focus algorithms. Eventually a full frame fish eye would be nice. I know that project went away and I guess was just replaced by releasing the HD 10-17 which allows you to remove the lens hood, but it still feels like that would be a nice lens to have.

[WorksAsIntended]

We should wait for the k-new af before we start praising it over the top and get disappointed

If Pentax puts out a 35/1.4 on the level of the DFA* 50/1.4 I will be among the first customers.