[TwoUptons]

I like the idea of a 24-90 f4... it's a handy range.

I also wonder if that 12-35 wouldn't be an interesting lens for a GR-Zoom...

Even if the 18-300 had the right registration distance for K-mount, that seems a weird range for a Pentax patent.
Haven't all of the historical Pentax superzooms been designed by other companies?
I know my old 28-200 was a Tamron design with Pentax coatings and labels...

-Eric

[biz-engineer]

You have a strange wish list, you want them to update two lenses that they just updated

The HD FA limited are 20+ years old designs, I don't consider coatings to justify the purchase (I'm comparing those f1.8 primes to Nikon Z and Panasonic S equivalents).

but you think a mid-range zoom that is obviously the missing counterpart to the 70-210/4 is unnecessary.

I have the 70-210 f4, it is light weight and sharp. Very unlikely I get a 70-300 f5.6 unless I sell my 70-210.

I guess it just shows that everyone has their own interests and priorities.

I have the same priority as many others who have expressed they discontent about the 15-30 due to its size, weight and require a special filter system just for that lens. The new DFA21 ltd can't take square filters. So, there is no general purpose 16-35 f4 or 20-40 f4 wide for Pentax full frame.

Well the appearance of a new lens would not make a new camera any less likely, and in fact would make it more likely. In the meantime, the K-1 II has enough imaging performance to justify any lens.

As far as I know, camera and lens work together. Publishing a patent for a lens doesn't buy time regarding cameras. Giving more patents about hypothetical lenses that don't exist is like feeding with a large bowl of shirataki noodles, shirataki noodle fill the stomach volume for an hour but we still have no energy because those noodle have zero calories. Ricoh , I have enough of eating full bowls of shirataki noodles all the time, please bring on a large piece of your Wagyu beef steak with a full bowl of fried rice, I'm hungry



More importantly, the bottom line in photography is that overlapping focal lengths bring little value for the money spent, unless we are a lens collector but being a lens collector is not the same as being a good photographer. However , if some very key focal length such as 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm aren't provided, that's a problem (photographic problem). For instance, there is no DFA 135mm prime lens and no DFA 24mm, which at two key photographic lenses. I would like to share that knowledge with Ricoh, for Pentax.

[Rondec]

What is the advantage to go for a 24-90 F4?


Common with other makers is 24-105 F4. Size and weight are determined by the lower end i.e. the 24mm F4, no?

The difference between 90 and 105 is actually fairly minimal and because this is an internal zoom, the difference would only be evident when focused at infinity.

Edit. It should be internal focus not zooming.

[biz-engineer]

if Pentax could afford three levels of zoom lens - I see some logic1.) 15-30/2.8 + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.82.) 24-90/4 + 70-210/43.) 28-105/3.5-5.6 + 70-300/4.5-5.6

No wide angle slower than f/2.8 ?

What is the advantage to go for a 24-90 F4?

Carry one lens in camera bag instead of two lenses (28-105+24-70) ?

I like the idea of a 24-90 f4... it's a handy range.

Of course, 24-90mm range would cover 80% of my best pictures taken over the last 20 years. That's probably why Ricoh didn't release such lens in 2016, as it would have killed sales of the dfa 24-70 and dfa 28-105.

[UlrichSchiegg]

[...]Carry one lens in camera bag instead of two lenses (28-105+24-70) ?[...]

You misquote. My question was related to 24-105 F4 versus 24-90F4.

[Mistral75]

The difference between 90 and 105 is actually fairly minimal and because this is an internal zoom, the difference would only be evident when focused at infinity.

According to the patent application, it is not. Focusing is internal, not zooming.

[Rondec]

According to the patent application, it is not. Focusing is internal, not zooming.

Sorry I meant internal focus not zooming.

[Serkevan]

You misquote. My question was related to 24-105 F4 versus 24-90F4.

Size and weight, mostly.

[biz-engineer]

The difference between 90 and 105 is actually fairly minimal and because this is an internal zoom, the difference would only be evident when focused at infinity.

There are always customers who buy more lenses even if they are already covered, I was one of them. Problem is now I have 9 Pentax lenses and some get very little use, it's not good.

[mbukal]

if Pentax could afford three levels of zoom lens - I see some logic
1.) 15-30/2.8 + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8
2.) 24-90/4 + 70-210/4
3.) 28-105/3.5-5.6 + 70-300/4.5-5.6

No wide angle slower than f/2.8 ?


.

I did not mention the primes (21/24/28/35/135 ~ f1.4/f1.8 ===200/300f2,8...) because they belong to category 4.) as dedicated lenses as well as the telephoto zoom lens range 250-600/f4~5,6 , and I think it is unnecessary to waste energy on new original Pentax's design in the range that already covers 15-30/2.8

[LXNights]

I like the idea of a 24-90mm zoom, I have the current FA f/3.5-4.5 which is quite good. Going to 105mm is very appealing, but not a hug difference between 105 and 90. I'm sure this 24-90mm would be more compact than the first one they made. I can be patient...

[house]

I also wonder if that 12-35 wouldn't be an interesting lens for a GR-Zoom...

A GR zoom is a completely unacceptable proposal. If they do that they might as well shut the GR brand down.

Most GR users will understand this. It's baffling that not everyone gets it. Some Ricoh guy even say so in an interview?

---------- Post added 09-05-22 at 11:15 AM ----------

if Pentax could afford three levels of zoom lens - I see some logic
1.) 15-30/2.8 + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8
2.) 24-90/4 + 70-210/4
3.) 28-105/3.5-5.6 + 70-300/4.5-5.6

each group meets certain optical qualities and possibilities and does not force the user to buy something that is not necessary for him and too expensive for his style of photography

I look at that list and note a brand lacking 24mm and 35mm primes and just really can't grasp the zoom lens logic. Pentax always seems to have a dazzling array of near identical zooms in the mid range. I sort of almost understand it in the golden apsc age but for FF today I just don't get it.

Really nice to see more patents from Pentax though. Will be interesting to see what they come up with!

[repaap]

I would sell my DFA 28-105 for DFA 24-90/4 immediatelly. Constant aperture would be sweet.


edi: then again, if there is also coming DFA 24-70, but it would be DFA*24-70/2.8 to go along with my DFA*70-200, which I do really like...that would be my choise actually...

[RGlasel]

There is an asymmetric relationship between patent applications and commercialized products. All cameras and lenses that eventually are offered for purchase are covered by patents (either owned by the manufacturer or licensed from another manufacturer) but not all patents result in products that can be purchased. Unless Ricoh Imaging has released a significant portion of their R&D staff, designers and engineers still need to keep busy and need to have something to show for their work.

The market for an internally focusing, constant f4 zoom in any range is "serious" photographers who don't want the weight and/or expense of f2.8 zooms. Going forward for the Pentax brand, new camera bodies are going to be too expensive for the proverbial soccer-mom market and other than a FF 70-300 lens in K-mount, there aren't any holes in the Pentax lineup for entry level consumer zooms. Maybe with the new "workshop" manufacturing focus, we might see this lens being produced, even if the market for a "mid-range" zoom is relatively small. Based on the number of used DA 16-45 f4 that I've seen over the years, Pentax was able to sell a surprising number of this kind of lens, even if most buyers ended up moving on to something else.

[mbukal]

while using apsc I also enjoyed the DA 17-70/4 lens regardless of the fact that it did not have an internal zoom
, if they go with the introduction of Pentax's design in the already existing 24-70/2.8, then it will definitely be DFA☆, this draws a parallel to the replacement of Tamron lens design, I would like Pentax ago to fill the gaps that which are felt, and only then move to improve the existing situation