HD PENTAX-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR now official

Started Jan 22, 2020 | Discussions
Massao Senior Member • Posts: 2,580
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Why Ricoh did not opt for an updated DA* 60-250/4 ?
Would it not be better to improve on an existing original and retain the price & value proposition than issue a new lens, a copy of Tamron, which is selling heavily discounted for other mounts?
I do not understand Ricoh's reasoning in this. It is counterintuitive and user-unfriendly in more than one quarter.
Can somebody enlighten me?

Developing a new lens version might had costed them more, and their staff is probably busy with developing Ricoh-branded products

-- hide signature --

Kind regards,
Massao
--
First camera: Canon FTB; First autofocus SLR camera: Pentax; First Nikon: F601 (N6006); First digital camera: Sony DSC-W5; First DSLR: Nikon D70; First mirrorless ICL camera: Samsung nx11

 Massao's gear list:Massao's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-3 Pentax K-r Samsung NX300 Samsung NX1100 A3000 +41 more
egk4260 Contributing Member • Posts: 776
Re: According to the explanation you provided, …

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

You have given all the reasons why nobody should ever buy Pentax branded equipment.
According to the explanation you provided, it is also cheaper, and more convenient, to have a DSLR other than Pentax, because lenses such as this one surely make it possible.

egk4260 wrote:

It could make plenty of sense in that:

It is a popular zoom range/aperture lens in other mounts.

The lens has been well received in reviews.

It will likely be offered at a lower price point than could be possible with a redesigned 60-250

It is available almost immediately. No roadmaps, no delays

The major R&D investments have already occurred on someone else’s bottom line.

The R&D budget for an in house redesign may not be defensible in the current market and more pointedly, the Pentax share of that market.

The vendor has a good relationship with Ricoh and thorough working knowledge of the system.

Tamron is reportedly the actual manufacturer for a lot of lenses for a lot of companies including Ricoh/Pentax.

So as you see it a viable Pentax offering should be offered in undesirable zoom range, more expensive than anything comparable, subject to delays and uncertainty, expensive to the point of non viability in regards to anticipated return, sourced from unreliable partners? Sounds like a real win!  I guess I just see things differently.

There are many who still use Pentax gear and prefer DSLR that already know there are other options that may be less expensive or have broader range of compatible accessories, but they prefer Pentax.  What do you offer them?

asahi man Senior Member • Posts: 1,013
Re: Tamron

If it has a Pentax coating, maybe it has the same like the original Tamron.

I will Take a look and will compare the coatings next days.

Joseph Tainter Forum Pro • Posts: 11,397
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Why Ricoh did not opt for an updated DA* 60-250/4 ?
Would it not be better to improve on an existing original and retain the price & value proposition than issue a new lens, a copy of Tamron, which is selling heavily discounted for other mounts?
I do not understand Ricoh's reasoning in this. It is counterintuitive and user-unfriendly in more than one quarter.
Can somebody enlighten me?

The 60-250 is by all accounts an excellent lens optically (I don't have it). However, it would be an odd focal length range in full frame, whereas it makes sense in APS-C format. The equivalent field of view in full frame would be a 90-325 lens , which is close to the old FA 80-320 that Pentax offered in film days.

The 70-210 focal length range is essentially the 70-200 that is a staple in the full frame market

Joe

(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 219
Review by Matt Bishop
1
klimbkat
klimbkat Senior Member • Posts: 2,473
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
1

Joseph Tainter wrote:

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Why Ricoh did not opt for an updated DA* 60-250/4 ?
Would it not be better to improve on an existing original and retain the price & value proposition than issue a new lens, a copy of Tamron, which is selling heavily discounted for other mounts?
I do not understand Ricoh's reasoning in this. It is counterintuitive and user-unfriendly in more than one quarter.
Can somebody enlighten me?

The 60-250 is by all accounts an excellent lens optically (I don't have it). However, it would be an odd focal length range in full frame, whereas it makes sense in APS-C format. The equivalent field of view in full frame would be a 90-325 lens , which is close to the old FA 80-320 that Pentax offered in film days.

The 70-210 focal length range is essentially the 70-200 that is a staple in the full frame market

Joe

The 60-250 includes 70-200 (or 210) which is a FF standard as you note. I'm not complaining about the extra bit on either end

Joseph Tainter Forum Pro • Posts: 11,397
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
1

klimbkat wrote:

Joseph Tainter wrote:

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Why Ricoh did not opt for an updated DA* 60-250/4 ?
Would it not be better to improve on an existing original and retain the price & value proposition than issue a new lens, a copy of Tamron, which is selling heavily discounted for other mounts?
I do not understand Ricoh's reasoning in this. It is counterintuitive and user-unfriendly in more than one quarter.
Can somebody enlighten me?

The 60-250 is by all accounts an excellent lens optically (I don't have it). However, it would be an odd focal length range in full frame, whereas it makes sense in APS-C format. The equivalent field of view in full frame would be a 90-325 lens , which is close to the old FA 80-320 that Pentax offered in film days.

The 70-210 focal length range is essentially the 70-200 that is a staple in the full frame market

Joe

The 60-250 includes 70-200 (or 210) which is a FF standard as you note. I'm not complaining about the extra bit on either end

Doug, Doug, this is marketing, not logic.

Joe

Massao Senior Member • Posts: 2,580
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all

klimbkat wrote:

Joseph Tainter wrote:

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Why Ricoh did not opt for an updated DA* 60-250/4 ?
Would it not be better to improve on an existing original and retain the price & value proposition than issue a new lens, a copy of Tamron, which is selling heavily discounted for other mounts?
I do not understand Ricoh's reasoning in this. It is counterintuitive and user-unfriendly in more than one quarter.
Can somebody enlighten me?

The 60-250 is by all accounts an excellent lens optically (I don't have it). However, it would be an odd focal length range in full frame, whereas it makes sense in APS-C format. The equivalent field of view in full frame would be a 90-325 lens , which is close to the old FA 80-320 that Pentax offered in film days.

The 70-210 focal length range is essentially the 70-200 that is a staple in the full frame market

Joe

The 60-250 includes 70-200 (or 210) which is a FF standard as you note. I'm not complaining about the extra bit on either end

Good point. Chris reviewed this 70-210mm f/4 Tamron lens, and it wasn't impressive on APS-C camera body:

It would be interesting to see a comparison between this lens and DA 60-250mm on a Pentax APS-C camera body.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards,
Massao
--
First camera: Canon FTB; First autofocus SLR camera: Pentax; First Nikon: F601 (N6006); First digital camera: Sony DSC-W5; First DSLR: Nikon D70; First mirrorless ICL camera: Samsung nx11

 Massao's gear list:Massao's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-3 Pentax K-r Samsung NX300 Samsung NX1100 A3000 +41 more
ellover009 Contributing Member • Posts: 975
Re: Review by Matt Bishop

Heliar wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxTj64mw8Ss

That was a pleasant video. Really sells the lens.

 ellover009's gear list:ellover009's gear list
Canon EOS 30D Pentax K-1 Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Pentax FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6
MightyMike Forum Pro • Posts: 40,714
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
4

klimbkat wrote:

Joseph Tainter wrote:

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Why Ricoh did not opt for an updated DA* 60-250/4 ?
Would it not be better to improve on an existing original and retain the price & value proposition than issue a new lens, a copy of Tamron, which is selling heavily discounted for other mounts?
I do not understand Ricoh's reasoning in this. It is counterintuitive and user-unfriendly in more than one quarter.
Can somebody enlighten me?

The 60-250 is by all accounts an excellent lens optically (I don't have it). However, it would be an odd focal length range in full frame, whereas it makes sense in APS-C format. The equivalent field of view in full frame would be a 90-325 lens , which is close to the old FA 80-320 that Pentax offered in film days.

The 70-210 focal length range is essentially the 70-200 that is a staple in the full frame market

Joe

The 60-250 includes 70-200 (or 210) which is a FF standard as you note. I'm not complaining about the extra bit on either end

I wouldn't complain about the extra range either, why does every lens have to be the same, there are hundreds of 70-200 type lenses to be had, its about time a company broke the mold!

-- hide signature --

Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/user/SpeEedy/profile/photos?sortBy=photoFavoriteCount

Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 7,413
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
3

MightyMike wrote:

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Why Ricoh did not opt for an updated DA* 60-250/4 ?
Would it not be better to improve on an existing original and retain the price & value proposition than issue a new lens, a copy of Tamron, which is selling heavily discounted for other mounts?
I do not understand Ricoh's reasoning in this. It is counterintuitive and user-unfriendly in more than one quarter.
Can somebody enlighten me?

I agree a modified 60-250 for FF would have been great, however when the decision was made to go for the clone of the Tamron at a specific price point was the Tamron as discounted as it is now?

Does it matter what the price was back then?  Surely it wasn't a surprise that the Tamron would eventually be offered at a discount, and predicting that discount shouldn't have required a crystal ball.

I can only surmise that the 60-250 was disqualified as a starting point for a new lens.  Perhaps because it relied on the old unreliable SDM focus motor.  Perhaps because the optical path would need to be redesigned from scratch to be fully FF compatible.  Perhaps because Pentax didn't have the personnel to devote to the project.  There are a million possible reasons and all we can do is speculate.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR +6 more
KentG Veteran Member • Posts: 4,699
Re: HD PENTAX-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR now official

I noticed the electronic diaphragm won't work on cameras before the K-3 also. I don't know if that means lenses in the KAF4 mount can't be used by earlier camera bodies. Of course its made for FF and it works with both the K-1 and K-1 II (w/firmware update in the K-1 and some other bodies). So if you have a K-5/5 II/5 IIs you better have the 60-250 in this range because this lens won't work on it.

Kent Gittings

 KentG's gear list:KentG's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-S1 Pentax K-1 Pentax smc D-FA 50mm F2.8 Macro Pentax FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 +3 more
MightyMike Forum Pro • Posts: 40,714
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
2

Mark Ransom wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Why Ricoh did not opt for an updated DA* 60-250/4 ?
Would it not be better to improve on an existing original and retain the price & value proposition than issue a new lens, a copy of Tamron, which is selling heavily discounted for other mounts?
I do not understand Ricoh's reasoning in this. It is counterintuitive and user-unfriendly in more than one quarter.
Can somebody enlighten me?

I agree a modified 60-250 for FF would have been great, however when the decision was made to go for the clone of the Tamron at a specific price point was the Tamron as discounted as it is now?

Does it matter what the price was back then? Surely it wasn't a surprise that the Tamron would eventually be offered at a discount, and predicting that discount shouldn't have required a crystal ball.

Ever notice that Tamron offer Pentax sloppy seconds and just as Pentax launches the lenses Tamron drops the price on their counterparts, It doesn't seem healthy to me. The question should be had Ricoh noticed this trend?

I can only surmise that the 60-250 was disqualified as a starting point for a new lens. Perhaps because it relied on the old unreliable SDM focus motor. Perhaps because the optical path would need to be redesigned from scratch to be fully FF compatible. Perhaps because Pentax didn't have the personnel to devote to the project. There are a million possible reasons and all we can do is speculate.

A new focus motor likely wouldn't be a big deal to implement, enlarging and tweaking some of the optics could also have been done, then give it a new body. The only problem I see is that the 60-250 is a good 200g heavier than the 70-210.

-- hide signature --

Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/user/SpeEedy/profile/photos?sortBy=photoFavoriteCount

Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 7,413
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all

MightyMike wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

Does it matter what the price was back then? Surely it wasn't a surprise that the Tamron would eventually be offered at a discount, and predicting that discount shouldn't have required a crystal ball.

Ever notice that Tamron offer Pentax sloppy seconds and just as Pentax launches the lenses Tamron drops the price on their counterparts, It doesn't seem healthy to me. The question should be had Ricoh noticed this trend?

I find it hard to believe that Ricoh would be so clueless, but I guess anything's possible.

I can only surmise that the 60-250 was disqualified as a starting point for a new lens. Perhaps because it relied on the old unreliable SDM focus motor. Perhaps because the optical path would need to be redesigned from scratch to be fully FF compatible. Perhaps because Pentax didn't have the personnel to devote to the project. There are a million possible reasons and all we can do is speculate.

A new focus motor likely wouldn't be a big deal to implement, enlarging and tweaking some of the optics could also have been done, then give it a new body.

I don't know anything about lens design, but I have to believe that a new focus motor would require an entire redesign of the focus mechanism.  Likewise enlarging the optics would require a new design.

The only problem I see is that the 60-250 is a good 200g heavier than the 70-210.

The weight difference seems in line with the difference in zoom range, especially at the long end.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR +6 more
MightyMike Forum Pro • Posts: 40,714
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
2

Mark Ransom wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

Does it matter what the price was back then? Surely it wasn't a surprise that the Tamron would eventually be offered at a discount, and predicting that discount shouldn't have required a crystal ball.

Ever notice that Tamron offer Pentax sloppy seconds and just as Pentax launches the lenses Tamron drops the price on their counterparts, It doesn't seem healthy to me. The question should be had Ricoh noticed this trend?

I find it hard to believe that Ricoh would be so clueless, but I guess anything's possible.

Me too but why does it keep happening

I can only surmise that the 60-250 was disqualified as a starting point for a new lens. Perhaps because it relied on the old unreliable SDM focus motor. Perhaps because the optical path would need to be redesigned from scratch to be fully FF compatible. Perhaps because Pentax didn't have the personnel to devote to the project. There are a million possible reasons and all we can do is speculate.

A new focus motor likely wouldn't be a big deal to implement, enlarging and tweaking some of the optics could also have been done, then give it a new body.

I don't know anything about lens design, but I have to believe that a new focus motor would require an entire redesign of the focus mechanism. Likewise enlarging the optics would require a new design.

Yes partial re-designs, not completely entirely new designs... but of course we ended up with an existing 3rd party lens with a few minor tweaks which may well have been easier and cheaper to do.

The only problem I see is that the 60-250 is a good 200g heavier than the 70-210.

The weight difference seems in line with the difference in zoom range, especially at the long end.

right, but how many more people would complain about a 1kg lens over an 800g lens despite the improved range?

-- hide signature --

Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/user/SpeEedy/profile/photos?sortBy=photoFavoriteCount

Alex Sarbu Forum Pro • Posts: 11,824
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
1

MightyMike wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

I can only surmise that the 60-250 was disqualified as a starting point for a new lens. Perhaps because it relied on the old unreliable SDM focus motor. Perhaps because the optical path would need to be redesigned from scratch to be fully FF compatible. Perhaps because Pentax didn't have the personnel to devote to the project. There are a million possible reasons and all we can do is speculate.

A new focus motor likely wouldn't be a big deal to implement, enlarging and tweaking some of the optics could also have been done, then give it a new body. The only problem I see is that the 60-250 is a good 200g heavier than the 70-210.

But that means making a completely new lens.

I suspect the most difficult thing in making a new lens is to make some profit out of it.

Alex

-- hide signature --

"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." - George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Ricoh GR III Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 II Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +8 more
MightyMike Forum Pro • Posts: 40,714
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
1

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

I can only surmise that the 60-250 was disqualified as a starting point for a new lens. Perhaps because it relied on the old unreliable SDM focus motor. Perhaps because the optical path would need to be redesigned from scratch to be fully FF compatible. Perhaps because Pentax didn't have the personnel to devote to the project. There are a million possible reasons and all we can do is speculate.

A new focus motor likely wouldn't be a big deal to implement, enlarging and tweaking some of the optics could also have been done, then give it a new body. The only problem I see is that the 60-250 is a good 200g heavier than the 70-210.

But that means making a completely new lens.

I suspect the most difficult thing in making a new lens is to make some profit out of it.

Alex

I see it more likely as a 25% redesign where they could still use a lot of the existing part readily being made.

-- hide signature --

Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/user/SpeEedy/profile/photos?sortBy=photoFavoriteCount

Mistral75
Mistral75 Contributing Member • Posts: 906
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
5

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

I can only surmise that the 60-250 was disqualified as a starting point for a new lens. Perhaps because it relied on the old unreliable SDM focus motor. Perhaps because the optical path would need to be redesigned from scratch to be fully FF compatible. Perhaps because Pentax didn't have the personnel to devote to the project. There are a million possible reasons and all we can do is speculate.

A new focus motor likely wouldn't be a big deal to implement, enlarging and tweaking some of the optics could also have been done, then give it a new body. The only problem I see is that the 60-250 is a good 200g heavier than the 70-210.

But that means making a completely new lens.

I suspect the most difficult thing in making a new lens is to make some profit out of it.

Alex

I see it more likely as a 25% redesign where they could still use a lot of the existing part readily being made.

That (e.g. 'enlarging and tweaking some of the optics') simply just can't be done that easily. It's optics, not the facelift of a car at its commercial half-life.

MightyMike Forum Pro • Posts: 40,714
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
4

Mistral75 wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

I can only surmise that the 60-250 was disqualified as a starting point for a new lens. Perhaps because it relied on the old unreliable SDM focus motor. Perhaps because the optical path would need to be redesigned from scratch to be fully FF compatible. Perhaps because Pentax didn't have the personnel to devote to the project. There are a million possible reasons and all we can do is speculate.

A new focus motor likely wouldn't be a big deal to implement, enlarging and tweaking some of the optics could also have been done, then give it a new body. The only problem I see is that the 60-250 is a good 200g heavier than the 70-210.

But that means making a completely new lens.

I suspect the most difficult thing in making a new lens is to make some profit out of it.

Alex

I see it more likely as a 25% redesign where they could still use a lot of the existing part readily being made.

That (e.g. 'enlarging and tweaking some of the optics') simply just can't be done that easily. It's optics, not the facelift of a car at its commercial half-life.

Have you done any optical design? have you modified any existing lenses in optics programs? I have! sure they may hit a wall that can't be easily surpassed however there is a strong chance they won't. It takes very little to open up an optics design and see which elements if any need to be made larger in order to ideally cover the FF image circle, if you want to keep the design nearly identical but still improve the overall image quality then you convert a surface or whole lens to being aspheric, not super cheap but cheaper than a total redesign. It could be as simple as redesigning the rear group to accommodate a larger image circle at a better quality. Yes of course you have to redesign some of the guts, mechanics and electronics to make it KAF4 and have a faster better focus motor. Heck they tweaked the FA*200mm F4.0 when they made it a DA*200mm F4.0. They also tweaked the DA18-55 lens to have 2 different versions... IIRC the early 15mm F3.5 had to be slightly tweaked as it was to similar to another lens from another brand, Zeiss what it?  So unless you are starting from scratch you don't have to totally redesign a lens. Its been proven over and over that the 60-250 can be used adequately on FF with a minor adjustment to its rear baffle, so redesign the rear baffle and make one of the elements aspheric to improve the edge quality then change the internal mechanics to accommodate KAF4 aperture and a new motor and add a circuit you already have on other lenses to tie it all together. Heck give me the patent for the 60-250 and I'll play with it, however I'm likely not skilled enough to make a perfectly viable alteration.

-- hide signature --

Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/user/SpeEedy/profile/photos?sortBy=photoFavoriteCount

Alex Sarbu Forum Pro • Posts: 11,824
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
1

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

I can only surmise that the 60-250 was disqualified as a starting point for a new lens. Perhaps because it relied on the old unreliable SDM focus motor. Perhaps because the optical path would need to be redesigned from scratch to be fully FF compatible. Perhaps because Pentax didn't have the personnel to devote to the project. There are a million possible reasons and all we can do is speculate.

A new focus motor likely wouldn't be a big deal to implement, enlarging and tweaking some of the optics could also have been done, then give it a new body. The only problem I see is that the 60-250 is a good 200g heavier than the 70-210.

But that means making a completely new lens.

I suspect the most difficult thing in making a new lens is to make some profit out of it.

Alex

I see it more likely as a 25% redesign where they could still use a lot of the existing part readily being made

The best case, it's a 20% redesign where they change 80% of the components

Alex

-- hide signature --

"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." - George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Ricoh GR III Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 II Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +8 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads