[UncleVanya]

When I read this first time I kind of hope that it MAY BE new version of 50-135/2.8, with new, fast, accurate and reliable AF, upgraded IQ (high resolution of K-3 III sensor need it, as new 16-50 shows), but with old version 'soul'.

The 16-50 SDM lens was always known to be weaker particularly at the wide end. The 50-135 is optically superb. The KP and K3iii don’t differ much in image quality and I can safely say the 50-135 is no slouch on the KP. However, improved focusing speed would be a welcome change. PLM would mean a redesigned optical model, DC or other motor system like that in the Tamron designed 70-210/4 would probably be sufficient and require fewer changes. It will be interesting to see what the decide to do.

[repaap]

The 16-50 SDM lens was always known to be weaker particularly at the wide end. The 50-135 is optically superb. The KP and K3iii don’t differ much in image quality and I can safely say the 50-135 is no slouch on the KP. However, improved focusing speed would be a welcome change. PLM would mean a redesigned optical model, DC or other motor system like that in the Tamron designed 70-210/4 would probably be sufficient and require fewer changes. It will be interesting to see what the decide to do.

Yeah, what I can say about old 16-50 is that with K-3 and K-7 before that those problems did get even worse because of focus accurasy was off, so many times just a tad back focused and it was enough for almost instant ’bin’ material. Very frustrating. (This is something what goes for many even better lenses people have tested with Pentax)

I’m not in so much hurry to get 16-50 PLM, but that new optical formula seems to be sweet. Now, DA*50-135PLM could be new VERY good. My DFA*70-200 is great, and works very well with K-3III too, which has replaced practically my K-1. But, why I’v not bought 50-135 before is because of old SDM, even if I have working sample 16-50… I’ll be keeping my eyes open for sure..

[cfraz]

It's puzzling that one can insult most members of PF with this

Camera + lens stabilization = consumer (hobby, amateur, playing with toys).

and follow it up two posts later with this

I bought the D-FA 70-210 last year based on advice from this forum,

[thibs]

If it will be PLM then it will be light for sure, but not necessarily small (look at 16-50 PLM).

The 16-50 is constant f/2.8 and heavily corrected lens. I don't see a single reason to compare those two.

[Apas]

I don't expect a huge difference though; the Canon and Nikon folks had decades to observe it, yet nothing so far

We had some lenses with built-in stabilization available for our system before, I remember to use Sigma 17 - 70 2.8 - 4 with it. Of course, the IBIS and ILIS did not work together, you had to decide which one you need and turn-off the other, but one in Lens sometimes behaved better than IBIS. If I understand correctly, the new stabilized lens will work TOGETHER with IBIS (that become a standard in mirrorless world currently) and this may help, especially with tracking objects.

---------- Post added 03-18-22 at 08:45 AM ----------

The 16-50 SDM lens was always known to be weaker particularly at the wide end. The 50-135 is optically superb. The KP and K3iii don’t differ much in image quality and I can safely say the 50-135 is no slouch on the KP. However, improved focusing speed would be a welcome change. PLM would mean a redesigned optical model, DC or other motor system like that in the Tamron designed 70-210/4 would probably be sufficient and require fewer changes. It will be interesting to see what the decide to do.

The problem is that when I browsed through literary hundreds of opinions and test of that lens I learned that some people were lucky and got optically best lens ever, others - got an expensive piece of... very average glass. There is Polish website Optyczne.pl, which is - in simple words - the same as Lenstip.com, and they tested 50-135 years ago, unfortunately before they launched Lenstip, so English version of that test is not available, and their conclusion is that this is average quality lens, with slow and inaccurate AF (which was prone for SDM failure), soft wide open. Another test I found claims that first tested specimen was so bad, that they ordered another one, which was great... IMHO modern and advanced camera like Pentax K-3 III deserves a set of modern, high quality lenses, not only good from optical point of view, but also in terms of AF, ergonomics, quality control. We must remember that Pentax is a niche system, now even more like before, being maybe last devoted DSLR manufacturer, with no many options for third-party optics, so we, as users, just deserves great, modern optics being offered by company. We have great 11-18/28 already available, together with new, heavily improved 16-50/2.8 - why we should still have only 15-years-old Tokina clone with number of known quality issues available for work on longer distances? For me range between 50 and 150 mm is very important, I am using that focal lengths very often - and I need good tool to do so.

---------- Post added 03-18-22 at 08:52 AM ----------

I bought the D-FA 70-210 last year based on advice from this forum, after asking if I should wait for the D-FA 70-300 or buy the D-FA 70-210. Forum member comments were that the HD Pentax-D FA 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED PLM WR may never be released, not to wait for it, go for the 70-210 f4. So I purchased the D-FA 70-210 f4, and now the 70-300 is rumored

Any rumored or suggested, or even announced lens or camera may be not released and that is true until... it is released and available for everyone.

[biz-engineer]

Any rumored or suggested, or even announced lens or camera may be not released and that is true until... it is released and available for everyone.

That is correct, I revisited that rumor and I realized it is just a repetition of previously rumored 70-300 without any new information added by/from Ricoh, there is no mention of any announcement date or release date, basically nothing more than last year.

[zapp]

That is correct, I revisited that rumor and I realized it is just a repetition of previously rumored 70-300 without any new information added by/from Ricoh, there is no mention of any announcement date or release date, basically nothing more than last year.

A little more information would help, but in this forum people ask for sources while looking for rumors. Pentax rumors are rare and become concrete one or two weeks before release. We should just read the roadmap and wait for news.

[Wheatfield]

If it will be PLM then it will be light for sure, but not necessarily small (look at 16-50 PLM).


Still I would like to know what Pentax is doing/planning. I mean if I buy now 60-250 or 300* then even if new version comes out it is game over for Pentax when it tries to sell me new lens. Money is already spent, there will be no second time. They will get their money so or so but I suppose they will be lots happier with selling new instead of old.

But then hey, it is Pentax PR so there is not much to expect from them

That's kind of how it works with most consumer goods isn't it? You buy a new stove, you don't go out and buy a second or third one do you?
I mean, you might if you are outfitting a rental property or you like having a stove in the living room for making popcorn while binging on Seinfeld reruns, but otherwise, you will just buy one stove.
How about a new car? Do you buy multiple copies of the same car? I know I don't. I might buy another vehicle, but it's going to have a different purpose. My sports car and my truck have completely different capabilities, although I am guilty of using both as daily drivers.
My sports car doesn't do a good job of trailer towing or hauling construction equipment, but it is much easier to navigate parking lots when I go grocery shopping.

So, you buy a telephoto zoom, lets say a 60-250, so you now have your telephoto zoom. What logic would there be to buying another almost identical lens, unless you happen to like having lots of the same thing and have the money to more or less throw out the window to satisfy the urge?
Which is something I admit to being guilty of on both counts (I happen to have a 50mm lens fetish).

---------- Post added Mar 18th, 2022 at 12:32 PM ----------

^^^^ Yes, but if new gear is like few months away then I can wait and spent on new. If it is few months away and I get old one now then there is no reason to get new when it is new.

Sure, new will sell, I did not get new 16-50 (was not really interested) but it will be less sells then when people who are interested in new gear have info and can plan accordingly.

Still it is Pentax, got used to this 😜

You know there isn't a company in the world that telegraphs their exact plans years in advance for exactly this reason, right?
This isn't just Pentax, get used to that.

[thibs]

We have great 11-18/28 already available, together with new, heavily improved 16-50/2.8 - why we should still have only 15-years-old Tokina clone with number of known quality issues available for work on longer distances? .

50-135 is NOT a Tokina design, please !

[UncleVanya]

The problem is that when I browsed through literary hundreds of opinions and test of that lens I learned that some people were lucky and got optically best lens ever, others - got an expensive piece of... very average glass. There is Polish website Optyczne.pl, which is - in simple words - the same as Lenstip.com, and they tested 50-135 years ago, unfortunately before they launched Lenstip, so English version of that test is not available, and their conclusion is that this is average quality lens, with slow and inaccurate AF (which was prone for SDM failure), soft wide open. Another test I found claims that first tested specimen was so bad, that they ordered another one, which was great... IMHO modern and advanced camera like Pentax K-3 III deserves a set of modern, high quality lenses, not only good from optical point of view, but also in terms of AF, ergonomics, quality control. We must remember that Pentax is a niche system, now even more like before, being maybe last devoted DSLR manufacturer, with no many options for third-party optics, so we, as users, just deserves great, modern optics being offered by company. We have great 11-18/28 already available, together with new, heavily improved 16-50/2.8 - why we should still have only 15-years-old Tokina clone with number of known quality issues available for work on longer distances? For me range between 50 and 150 mm is very important, I am using that focal lengths very often - and I need good tool to do so.

respectfully... that's one sample. I have literally never had a copy come through here (and I've converted a lot of them to screw drive) that wasn't sharp. I have also never met a forum member who was disappointed. I think you are misinformed by overthinking in this case. The lens is quite lovely and while the focus system is a bit sluggish - it is a fine optic.

[Apas]

50-135 is NOT a Tokina design, please !

I did not said that Pentax 50 - 135 was designed by Tokina, I said that this was a clone of Tokina 50 - 135. Pentax and Tokina both suggested in many occasions that they designed the lens together, then Pentax branded own clone with K mount, and Tokina did the same with Nikon and Canon mounts. There were difference in materials used for body construction, maybe coating and AF mechanism, but from optical point of view both were identical: 18 lenses in 14 groups, same front element diameter, same magnification and minimum focusing distance. Tokina was a clone of Pentax, and Pentax was a clone of Tokina.

[Kunzite]

I did not said that Pentax 50 - 135 was designed by Tokina, I said that this was a clone of Tokina 50 - 135.

Saying it's a Tokina clone makes the Tokina the original and the Pentax an exact copy. Which obviously isn't true: this lens was designed by Pentax, and Tokina used Pentax' optical design. Same for every other Pentax lens which was also offered by Tokina, except for the DA 12-24 f4 (which was a Tokina optical design).

[Apas]

respectfully... that's one sample. I have literally never had a copy come through here (and I've converted a lot of them to screw drive) that wasn't sharp. I have also never met a forum member who was disappointed. I think you are misinformed by overthinking in this case. The lens is quite lovely and while the focus system is a bit sluggish - it is a fine optic.

Well, I saw sample images and most of them were stunning, agree. But I found more than one, and more than five reviews/opinions from reliable source, with sample images as proof, which clearly indicated that there was an issue with quality control of that particular lens. Well, to be honest I found few very enthusiastic user opinions about IQ of that lens, with very soft sample images attached, taken with wide open lens, and this is another example that in some occasions a new toy turning on owner's wishful thinking mode ... Even if only one per 20 units was affected I don't like to became the owner of this one, especially as in my country Pentax is not existing in form of any service or official dealer, so exchange of this lens may be difficult. I know, however, that there are many very happy users of this piece of glass across the planet, and they have reasons to be so...

---------- Post added 03-20-22 at 02:16 AM ----------

Saying it's a Tokina clone makes the Tokina the original and the Pentax an exact copy. Which obviously isn't true: this lens was designed by Pentax, and Tokina used Pentax' optical design. Same for every other Pentax lens which was also offered by Tokina, except for the DA 12-24 f4 (which was a Tokina optical design).

That's interesting - can you link a source, please? I am asking, as any source I found so far says that there was cooperation, or lens was designed TOGETHER by Tokina and Pentax - but to be honest I had more important things to do and this research wasn't any priority in my life, thus I may skip something... However, for sure there is one design (whoever did it) and two clones, one branded by Pentax and one by Tokina, and both statements that Tokina is a clone of Pentax and Pentax is a clone of Tokina are true from formal logic point of view.

[Kunzite]

Well, I saw sample images and most of them were stunning, agree. But I found more than one, and more than five reviews/opinions from reliable source, with sample images as proof, which clearly indicated that there was an issue with quality control of that particular lens.

By that standard, you shouldn't buy anything because you might get a subpar sample

That's interesting - can you link a source, please? I am asking, as any source I found so far says that there was cooperation, or lens was designed TOGETHER by Tokina and Pentax - but to be honest I had more important things to do and this research wasn't any priority in my life, thus I may skip something...

We do have the patents associated with these lenses: through the viewfinder: Known and Unknown Pentax lens designers and their lenses
I'm not aware of any information that Tokina was involved in the optical design of these lenses.

However, for sure there is one design (whoever did it) and two clones, one branded by Pentax and one by Tokina, and both statements that Tokina is a clone of Pentax and Pentax is a clone of Tokina are true from formal logic point of view.

Nope, it doesn't work like that; if X is a clone of Y, that means X is a duplicate of the original Y, and Y is duplicated by - or cloned by - X.

[Serkevan]

Even if only one per 20 units was affected I don't like to became the owner of this one

Wait till you hear about how this happens with every brand.

However, for sure there is one design (whoever did it) and two clones, one branded by Pentax and one by Tokina, and both statements that Tokina is a clone of Pentax and Pentax is a clone of Tokina are true from formal logic point of view.

Nope. There is one design (the Pentax one) and one "clone" (or "rebadge", as it is commonly known). However, the rebadge is optically the same, so not a different lens. Therefore, the only lens is the Pentax one. Canikon users simply bought a Pentax lens that said "Tokina" on the side instead.