Speculation: Could the announced Tokina 12-28mm F4 also be the Pentax "DA Wide Zoom"?

LowVoltage · 01-29-2013, 11:36 PM

This is pure speculation/wishful thinking on my part: Could the announced Tokina 12-28mm f4 lens from this dpreview article also be the future Pentax "DA Wide Zoom" from the Pentax 2012/2013 Lens Road Map we've seen?

Considering Pentax and Tokina produced a collaborated 12-24mm zoom (I don't know which company should receive the lion's share of credit) it's understandable the new Tokina could be a taste of things to come. On the other hand, I would expect a lens design which originated with Pentax to arrive first with the Pentax logo on it. The 12-28mm focal length works with the DA Wide Zoom target indicated on the Lens Road Map. Then again, a different focal length, 12-35mm, was indicated by a Pentax patent from late 2010 and that was a non-constant aperture design.

Thoughts?

Adam · 01-29-2013, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by LowVoltage

This is pure speculation/wishful thinking on my part: Could the announced Tokina 12-28mm f4 lens from this dpreview article also be the future Pentax "DA Wide Zoom" from the Pentax 2012/2013 Lens Road Map we've seen?

Considering Pentax and Tokina produced a collaborated 12-24mm zoom (I don't know which company should receive the lion's share of credit) it's understandable the new Tokina could be a taste of things to come. On the other hand, I would expect a lens design which originated with Pentax to arrive first with the Pentax logo on it. The 12-28mm focal length works with the DA Wide Zoom target indicated on the Lens Road Map. Then again, a different focal length, 12-35mm, was indicated by a Pentax patent from late 2010 and that was a non-constant aperture design.

Thoughts?

Why would they release a 12-28mm if they already have 12-24mm with the same aperture rating? Wouldn't really make sense IMO, unless they decided to discontinue the 12-24mm. It would be nice if Pentax could start replacing non-SDM lenses (that aren't Limiteds) with ones that do have SDM.

It would also make sense for Pentax to make a lens with either a faster aperture or a wider FOV (i.e. a 10-20mm). If Nikon can make a FX 14-24mm F2.8, Pentax should be able to make a DX 10-20mm F2.8 also

LowVoltage · 01-30-2013, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Adam

Why would they release a 12-28mm if they already have 12-24mm with the same aperture rating?

I was wondering the same thing, as Tokina came out with a Version II of their 12-24mm not that long ago. For the second go-around their 12-24mm included a focusing motor to benefit lower-end Nikons DSLRs along with updated element coatings. I agree, a 12-28mm is a weird addition. Not only does Tokina have the 12-24mm but also an 11-16mm for APS-C bodies. Those two lenses already have too much overlap, but depending on how a CaNikon user has collected their lenses one or the other Tokina just might fill a gap.

I've mused for a while, wishing Pentax licensed a version of the Tokina 11-16mm, as it get's very good reviews; very high resolution, but it's primary weakness is rather strong CA. Nothing post production can't fix. However, the 12-35mm patent gave me hope for a more versatile ultra wide angle lens. Obviously, a 12-28mm has more reach over any predecessor from Pentax... how about a 10-30mm?! Take my money!

DSims · 01-30-2013, 01:28 AM

The ability to include price increases is reason enough for a camera company (especially a Japanese one) to introduce new models. It's a way of adjusting for the higher value of the yen compared to other currencies (especially the dollar).

I'm not privy to the pricing details in this particular situation - I'm just saying it's high enough motivation in and of itself.

Medium FormatPro · 01-30-2013, 04:25 AM

So if the Tokina retails for about nine hundred then by having Pentax relabel it they can surely bump up the mapping price to about 2k.

It would appear as though this is *one of* the codeveloped lens' from both Pentax and Tokina

Saxplayer1004 · 01-30-2013, 06:08 AM

the 11-16 is a 2.8 though so while the focal length is there, it is meant to compliment their 16-50 2.8. I still am befuddled as to why pentax didn't release the 11-16. From talking with Canikon people who have the 11-16 and either have or have used the 16-50 and 50-135 they say that the 11-16 is leaps and bounds ahead of the other two and is significantly better than anything Canikon have in that range. The 11-16 is the lens that almost never comes off of my cousins camera.

I'm interested in the new DA* zoom though because it looks like it could very well be a 28-70/80 indicating FF, although if they do that, I hope to hell they redesign the 16-50 or at least give the DA wide kick ass weather sealing on the * line.

LowVoltage · 01-30-2013, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Saxplayer1004

the 11-16 is a 2.8 though so while the focal length is there, it is meant to compliment their 16-50 2.8.

Exactly what I was thinking. The 16mm long end stops where a number of Nikon standard zooms start. The same is very close for Canon. The situation is the same for the 12-24mm. Both Canon and Nikon possess a number of 24-XXXmm zooms.

This situation reminds me of the pleas that spring up from time to time from the DA/FA Ltd. prime folks. "We want a XXmm f/0.95 to fill the gap!"

As Adam stated earlier, there's no reason Pentax can't make a 10-20mm lens. I would hope, however, that any ultra wide lens Pentax releases at least makes sense in the lens line up. The road map indicates a DA* standard-ish zoom with a little more reach than the 16-50mm. Nobody has said definitively if it will be 18-80mm, 20-85mm... Even if the DA Wide Zoom on the same map isn't a Star lens it would be nice to see that lens sync up, closely at least, with existing glass.

RBellavance · 01-30-2013, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by LowVoltage

I was wondering the same thing, as Tokina came out with a Version II of their 12-24mm not that long ago

That "not too long ago" was september 2008

LowVoltage · 01-30-2013, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by RBellavance

That "not too long ago" was september 2008

Hmm, the review I read from Les Tip was from 2010. Oh well, time flies when you're taking pictures I suppose...

MrCynical · 01-30-2013, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by LowVoltage

Exactly what I was thinking. The 16mm long end stops where a number of Nikon standard zooms start. The same is very close for Canon. The situation is the same for the 12-24mm. Both Canon and Nikon possess a number of 24-XXXmm zooms.

This situation reminds me of the pleas that spring up from time to time from the DA/FA Ltd. prime folks. "We want a XXmm f/0.95 to fill the gap!"

As Adam stated earlier, there's no reason Pentax can't make a 10-20mm lens. I would hope, however, that any ultra wide lens Pentax releases at least makes sense in the lens line up. The road map indicates a DA* standard-ish zoom with a little more reach than the 16-50mm. Nobody has said definitively if it will be 18-80mm, 20-85mm... Even if the DA Wide Zoom on the same map isn't a Star lens it would be nice to see that lens sync up, closely at least, with existing glass.

Wouldn't an 11-16 f2.8 be the perfect 'match' to the 16-50 though? Especially if weather sealed?

cali92rs · 01-30-2013, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by MrCynical

Wouldn't an 11-16 f2.8 be the perfect 'match' to the 16-50 though? Especially if weather sealed?

No..but a 10-16mm would

Saxplayer1004 · 01-30-2013, 04:56 PM

It was the perfect compliment, that's why Tokina released it in their lineup. The full line up made great series. 11-16, 16-50, 50-135. All 2.8, only thing nicer would have been the 50-135 with a 77mm instead of 67mm filter for filter compatibility. Why pentax didn't release it, I don't know. Especially since the 11-16 was the best of the 3...

DSims · 01-30-2013, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Saxplayer1004

From talking with Canikon people who have the 11-16 and either have or have used the 16-50 and 50-135 they say that the 11-16 is leaps and bounds ahead of the other two

The 11-16 is a lens I want, but (naturally) can't get because I have only K-mount bodies. However, calling it "leaps and bounds" ahead of the 50-135 sounds like a bit of a stretch, based on what I've seen. If it's "merely" the equal of that lens it's quite enough. I'm not sure even the Nikon 14-24 or Sony 16-35 are "leaps and bounds" ahead, and they're the two best wide-angle DSLR zooms I know of.

LowVoltage · 01-30-2013, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by MrCynical

Wouldn't an 11-16 f2.8 be the perfect 'match' to the 16-50 though? Especially if weather sealed?

As Saxplayer1004 said... 11-16mm did and does compliment 16-50mm. However, according to the Pentax Lens Road Map something is coming down the line which will stand next to the DA* 16-50. Unless Pentax is going to do what they did with the DA* 50-135mm and 60-250mm which share an awful lot of focal length, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the sun set on the DA* 16-50mm. And assuming that happened, I'd be most comfortable with an UWA lens which compliments the focal length of the newer lens. I'm sure others have different wants and desires - this is simply mine!

(And by the way, to be clear, I'm not criticizing the overlapping FL of the DA* 50-135mm and 60-250mm. They each serve their owners for good reasons. I have a DA* 50-135mm. I like its utility and I can't imagine lugging around something the size or weight of its larger brother just for portraits!)

Saxplayer1004 · 01-31-2013, 06:24 AM

All I've read and witnessed, albeit only on Nikons, is that the overall quality of the Tokina 11-16 was significant better than the 16-50 and the 50-135. The 16-50 was the worst of the bunch, plagued with softness etc, but the 11-16 put the Canikon equivalents in their place for less than half the price. Again, just saying that from what I've read and since my cousin had all 3 at one point, ended up selling the longer 2 recently in favor of Nikkor lenses, but the 11-16 stayed and it is a truly fantastic lens.

The overlap in focal length doesn't necessarily matter if they are in different lens classes though. To have a full on 2.8 line from UWA to telephoto for professionals etc is great, then to have a full F4 line for those who don't want to shell out for the 2.8's either in $ or in size/weight, then it isn't overlap, it is merely an alternative line of lenses. If you look at Nikkors lineup, you can see it. 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 all 2.8's, then the 200-400 f4. Then the option with the 16-35/4 if you don't want the extra weight and bulk of the 2.8, the 24-85 2.8/4 and the 70-200/4 for the same reason. Sure it's overlap, but when the constant 2.8's are twice the size and weight, it is all about having the right option for the right occasion.

01-29-2013, 11:36 PM	#1
LowVoltage Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Mount Joy, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 544	Speculation: Could the announced Tokina 12-28mm F4 also be the Pentax "DA Wide Zoom"? This is pure speculation/wishful thinking on my part: Could the announced Tokina 12-28mm f4 lens from this dpreview article also be the future Pentax "DA Wide Zoom" from the Pentax 2012/2013 Lens Road Map we've seen? Considering Pentax and Tokina produced a collaborated 12-24mm zoom (I don't know which company should receive the lion's share of credit) it's understandable the new Tokina could be a taste of things to come. On the other hand, I would expect a lens design which originated with Pentax to arrive first with the Pentax logo on it. The 12-28mm focal length works with the DA Wide Zoom target indicated on the Lens Road Map. Then again, a different focal length, 12-35mm, was indicated by a Pentax patent from late 2010 and that was a non-constant aperture design. Thoughts?

01-29-2013, 11:52 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	Originally posted by LowVoltage This is pure speculation/wishful thinking on my part: Could the announced Tokina 12-28mm f4 lens from this dpreview article also be the future Pentax "DA Wide Zoom" from the Pentax 2012/2013 Lens Road Map we've seen? Considering Pentax and Tokina produced a collaborated 12-24mm zoom (I don't know which company should receive the lion's share of credit) it's understandable the new Tokina could be a taste of things to come. On the other hand, I would expect a lens design which originated with Pentax to arrive first with the Pentax logo on it. The 12-28mm focal length works with the DA Wide Zoom target indicated on the Lens Road Map. Then again, a different focal length, 12-35mm, was indicated by a Pentax patent from late 2010 and that was a non-constant aperture design. Thoughts? Why would they release a 12-28mm if they already have 12-24mm with the same aperture rating? Wouldn't really make sense IMO, unless they decided to discontinue the 12-24mm. It would be nice if Pentax could start replacing non-SDM lenses (that aren't Limiteds) with ones that do have SDM. It would also make sense for Pentax to make a lens with either a faster aperture or a wider FOV (i.e. a 10-20mm). If Nikon can make a FX 14-24mm F2.8, Pentax should be able to make a DX 10-20mm F2.8 also Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

01-30-2013, 02:34 PM	#9
LowVoltage Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Mount Joy, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 544 Original Poster	Originally posted by RBellavance That "not too long ago" was september 2008 Hmm, the review I read from Les Tip was from 2010. Oh well, time flies when you're taking pictures I suppose... Last edited by LowVoltage; 01-30-2013 at 02:34 PM. Reason: mispelling

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
"The Smurfs" and "The Care Bears" can lure children into witchcraft	jeffkrol	General Talk	3	11-05-2012 01:14 PM
Suggestion Consider removing the "Pentax K-3 Announced" post	bwDraco	Site Suggestions and Help	5	07-17-2012 05:39 AM
Tokina 28mm 2.8 "A" Lens	ramseybuckeye	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	08-16-2011 04:48 PM
Suggestion "Speculation"threads should be closed after becoming OBE	MRRiley	Site Suggestions and Help	9	12-25-2008 03:47 PM
Tokina Makro 35mm f2.8 ("the ugly") officially announced	blende8	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	11-18-2007 05:50 AM

01-30-2013, 12:35 AM	#3
LowVoltage Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Mount Joy, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 544 Original Poster	Originally posted by Adam Why would they release a 12-28mm if they already have 12-24mm with the same aperture rating? I was wondering the same thing, as Tokina came out with a Version II of their 12-24mm not that long ago. For the second go-around their 12-24mm included a focusing motor to benefit lower-end Nikons DSLRs along with updated element coatings. I agree, a 12-28mm is a weird addition. Not only does Tokina have the 12-24mm but also an 11-16mm for APS-C bodies. Those two lenses already have too much overlap, but depending on how a CaNikon user has collected their lenses one or the other Tokina just might fill a gap. I've mused for a while, wishing Pentax licensed a version of the Tokina 11-16mm, as it get's very good reviews; very high resolution, but it's primary weakness is rather strong CA. Nothing post production can't fix. However, the 12-35mm patent gave me hope for a more versatile ultra wide angle lens. Obviously, a 12-28mm has more reach over any predecessor from Pentax... how about a 10-30mm?! Take my money!

01-30-2013, 01:28 AM	#4
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	The ability to include price increases is reason enough for a camera company (especially a Japanese one) to introduce new models. It's a way of adjusting for the higher value of the yen compared to other currencies (especially the dollar). I'm not privy to the pricing details in this particular situation - I'm just saying it's high enough motivation in and of itself.

01-30-2013, 04:25 AM	#5
Medium FormatPro Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh Photos: Albums Posts: 1,668	So if the Tokina retails for about nine hundred then by having Pentax relabel it they can surely bump up the mapping price to about 2k. It would appear as though this is one of the codeveloped lens' from both Pentax and Tokina

01-30-2013, 06:08 AM	#6
Saxplayer1004 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 179	the 11-16 is a 2.8 though so while the focal length is there, it is meant to compliment their 16-50 2.8. I still am befuddled as to why pentax didn't release the 11-16. From talking with Canikon people who have the 11-16 and either have or have used the 16-50 and 50-135 they say that the 11-16 is leaps and bounds ahead of the other two and is significantly better than anything Canikon have in that range. The 11-16 is the lens that almost never comes off of my cousins camera. I'm interested in the new DA* zoom though because it looks like it could very well be a 28-70/80 indicating FF, although if they do that, I hope to hell they redesign the 16-50 or at least give the DA wide kick ass weather sealing on the * line.

01-30-2013, 12:20 PM	#7
LowVoltage Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Mount Joy, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 544 Original Poster	Originally posted by Saxplayer1004 the 11-16 is a 2.8 though so while the focal length is there, it is meant to compliment their 16-50 2.8. Exactly what I was thinking. The 16mm long end stops where a number of Nikon standard zooms start. The same is very close for Canon. The situation is the same for the 12-24mm. Both Canon and Nikon possess a number of 24-XXXmm zooms. This situation reminds me of the pleas that spring up from time to time from the DA/FA Ltd. prime folks. "We want a XXmm f/0.95 to fill the gap!" As Adam stated earlier, there's no reason Pentax can't make a 10-20mm lens. I would hope, however, that any ultra wide lens Pentax releases at least makes sense in the lens line up. The road map indicates a DA* standard-ish zoom with a little more reach than the 16-50mm. Nobody has said definitively if it will be 18-80mm, 20-85mm... Even if the DA Wide Zoom on the same map isn't a Star lens it would be nice to see that lens sync up, closely at least, with existing glass.

01-30-2013, 01:06 PM	#8
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by LowVoltage I was wondering the same thing, as Tokina came out with a Version II of their 12-24mm not that long ago That "not too long ago" was september 2008

01-30-2013, 03:38 PM	#10
MrCynical Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 132	Originally posted by LowVoltage Exactly what I was thinking. The 16mm long end stops where a number of Nikon standard zooms start. The same is very close for Canon. The situation is the same for the 12-24mm. Both Canon and Nikon possess a number of 24-XXXmm zooms. This situation reminds me of the pleas that spring up from time to time from the DA/FA Ltd. prime folks. "We want a XXmm f/0.95 to fill the gap!" As Adam stated earlier, there's no reason Pentax can't make a 10-20mm lens. I would hope, however, that any ultra wide lens Pentax releases at least makes sense in the lens line up. The road map indicates a DA* standard-ish zoom with a little more reach than the 16-50mm. Nobody has said definitively if it will be 18-80mm, 20-85mm... Even if the DA Wide Zoom on the same map isn't a Star lens it would be nice to see that lens sync up, closely at least, with existing glass. Wouldn't an 11-16 f2.8 be the perfect 'match' to the 16-50 though? Especially if weather sealed?

01-30-2013, 03:54 PM	#11
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Originally posted by MrCynical Wouldn't an 11-16 f2.8 be the perfect 'match' to the 16-50 though? Especially if weather sealed? No..but a 10-16mm would

01-30-2013, 04:56 PM	#12
Saxplayer1004 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 179	It was the perfect compliment, that's why Tokina released it in their lineup. The full line up made great series. 11-16, 16-50, 50-135. All 2.8, only thing nicer would have been the 50-135 with a 77mm instead of 67mm filter for filter compatibility. Why pentax didn't release it, I don't know. Especially since the 11-16 was the best of the 3...

01-30-2013, 07:53 PM	#13
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by Saxplayer1004 From talking with Canikon people who have the 11-16 and either have or have used the 16-50 and 50-135 they say that the 11-16 is leaps and bounds ahead of the other two The 11-16 is a lens I want, but (naturally) can't get because I have only K-mount bodies. However, calling it "leaps and bounds" ahead of the 50-135 sounds like a bit of a stretch, based on what I've seen. If it's "merely" the equal of that lens it's quite enough. I'm not sure even the Nikon 14-24 or Sony 16-35 are "leaps and bounds" ahead, and they're the two best wide-angle DSLR zooms I know of.

01-30-2013, 11:28 PM	#14
LowVoltage Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Mount Joy, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 544 Original Poster	Originally posted by MrCynical Wouldn't an 11-16 f2.8 be the perfect 'match' to the 16-50 though? Especially if weather sealed? As Saxplayer1004 said... 11-16mm did and does compliment 16-50mm. However, according to the Pentax Lens Road Map something is coming down the line which will stand next to the DA* 16-50. Unless Pentax is going to do what they did with the DA* 50-135mm and 60-250mm which share an awful lot of focal length, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the sun set on the DA* 16-50mm. And assuming that happened, I'd be most comfortable with an UWA lens which compliments the focal length of the newer lens. I'm sure others have different wants and desires - this is simply mine! (And by the way, to be clear, I'm not criticizing the overlapping FL of the DA* 50-135mm and 60-250mm. They each serve their owners for good reasons. I have a DA* 50-135mm. I like its utility and I can't imagine lugging around something the size or weight of its larger brother just for portraits!)

01-31-2013, 06:24 AM	#15
Saxplayer1004 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 179	All I've read and witnessed, albeit only on Nikons, is that the overall quality of the Tokina 11-16 was significant better than the 16-50 and the 50-135. The 16-50 was the worst of the bunch, plagued with softness etc, but the 11-16 put the Canikon equivalents in their place for less than half the price. Again, just saying that from what I've read and since my cousin had all 3 at one point, ended up selling the longer 2 recently in favor of Nikkor lenses, but the 11-16 stayed and it is a truly fantastic lens. The overlap in focal length doesn't necessarily matter if they are in different lens classes though. To have a full on 2.8 line from UWA to telephoto for professionals etc is great, then to have a full F4 line for those who don't want to shell out for the 2.8's either in $ or in size/weight, then it isn't overlap, it is merely an alternative line of lenses. If you look at Nikkors lineup, you can see it. 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 all 2.8's, then the 200-400 f4. Then the option with the 16-35/4 if you don't want the extra weight and bulk of the 2.8, the 24-85 2.8/4 and the 70-200/4 for the same reason. Sure it's overlap, but when the constant 2.8's are twice the size and weight, it is all about having the right option for the right occasion.