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

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
MightyMike Forum Pro • Posts: 40,634
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

The Patent for the 60-250mm confirms its already FF no tweaking required!

My 60-250mm sample disagrees.

Alex

That is because your beloved Pentax crippled it when they put it into production. But you could probably blame Hoya as this happened under their watch.

Irrelevant.

The fact remains, such "small" changes would be the same as making a new lens, as this is judged against the real product and its constraints, not some abstract entity on a PC.

Alex

The Patent doesn't lie, no "small" changes necessary

-- 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

MightyMike Forum Pro • Posts: 40,634
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all

Mark Ransom wrote:

DougOB wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

The Patent for the 60-250mm confirms its already FF no tweaking required!

My 60-250mm sample disagrees.

Alex

That is because your beloved Pentax crippled it when they put it into production. But you could probably blame Hoya as this happened under their watch.

Irrelevant.

The fact remains, such "small" changes would be the same as making a new lens, as this is judged against the real product and its constraints, not some abstract entity on a PC.

You mean removing the baffle?

If "removing the baffle" was all it took, don't you think Pentax would have done it years ago? I take that as evidence that more was involved.

I agree more would be involved but the truth of the matter is it was designed to be a FF lens right from the beginning!

-- 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

LoneTree1
LoneTree1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,801
Re: HD PENTAX-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR now official

petedelry wrote:

In Sweden the price for this lens is 14 990 Swedish crowns (at Cyberphoto). The same dealer currently is selling the Tamron 70-210 F4 at the reduced price of 3 990 Swedish crowns (ordinary price 6 790 Swedish crowns).

So I could today buy the Tamron version of the 70-210 F4 an add a Nikon D7500 for the total price of 14740 and save 250 crowns comparing to buying the Pentax version of the lens.

Must be particular to Sweden because the difference in price Stateside is what, $300 on those lenses?

DougOB
DougOB Senior Member • Posts: 1,842
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all

Mark Ransom wrote:

DougOB wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

The Patent for the 60-250mm confirms its already FF no tweaking required!

My 60-250mm sample disagrees.

Alex

That is because your beloved Pentax crippled it when they put it into production. But you could probably blame Hoya as this happened under their watch.

Irrelevant.

The fact remains, such "small" changes would be the same as making a new lens, as this is judged against the real product and its constraints, not some abstract entity on a PC.

You mean removing the baffle?

If "removing the baffle" was all it took, don't you think Pentax would have done it years ago? I take that as evidence that more was involved.

I must admit I have neither a K-1 nor the 60-250, on the other hand I have read several posts from people who say their lens works well on FF with the baffle removed.  Perhaps there is an adverse effect, e.g., increased internal reflection.

Doug

 DougOB's gear list:DougOB's gear list
Pentax K-01 Pentax K-3 Pentax Q-S1 Pentax KP Pentax K-70 +32 more
Mistral75
Mistral75 Contributing Member • Posts: 897
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all

MightyMike wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

DougOB wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

The Patent for the 60-250mm confirms its already FF no tweaking required!

My 60-250mm sample disagrees.

Alex

That is because your beloved Pentax crippled it when they put it into production. But you could probably blame Hoya as this happened under their watch.

Irrelevant.

The fact remains, such "small" changes would be the same as making a new lens, as this is judged against the real product and its constraints, not some abstract entity on a PC.

You mean removing the baffle?

If "removing the baffle" was all it took, don't you think Pentax would have done it years ago? I take that as evidence that more was involved.

I agree more would be involved but the truth of the matter is it was designed to be a FF lens right from the beginning!

Several long lenses were launched during the APS-C era that, according to the corresponding patent, were designed for a 24x36 image circle: this one, the 200mm f/2.8, the 300mm f/4 and the 560mm f/5.6.

All of them, but this one, are now qualified as 24x36 lenses by Ricoh. There must be a reason. Most probably the image quality on the borders hasn't been considered as satisfactory.

MightyMike Forum Pro • Posts: 40,634
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all

Mistral75 wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

DougOB wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

The Patent for the 60-250mm confirms its already FF no tweaking required!

My 60-250mm sample disagrees.

Alex

That is because your beloved Pentax crippled it when they put it into production. But you could probably blame Hoya as this happened under their watch.

Irrelevant.

The fact remains, such "small" changes would be the same as making a new lens, as this is judged against the real product and its constraints, not some abstract entity on a PC.

You mean removing the baffle?

If "removing the baffle" was all it took, don't you think Pentax would have done it years ago? I take that as evidence that more was involved.

I agree more would be involved but the truth of the matter is it was designed to be a FF lens right from the beginning!

Several long lenses were launched during the APS-C era that, according to the corresponding patent, were designed for a 24x36 image circle: this one, the 200mm f/2.8, the 300mm f/4 and the 560mm f/5.6.

All of them, but this one, are now qualified as 24x36 lenses by Ricoh. There must be a reason. Most probably the image quality on the borders hasn't been considered as satisfactory.

I concur and with the baffle in place the vignetting at some focal lengths is a bit higher than desirable on FF

-- 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

MightyMike Forum Pro • Posts: 40,634
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
2

DougOB wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

DougOB wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

The Patent for the 60-250mm confirms its already FF no tweaking required!

My 60-250mm sample disagrees.

Alex

That is because your beloved Pentax crippled it when they put it into production. But you could probably blame Hoya as this happened under their watch.

Irrelevant.

The fact remains, such "small" changes would be the same as making a new lens, as this is judged against the real product and its constraints, not some abstract entity on a PC.

You mean removing the baffle?

If "removing the baffle" was all it took, don't you think Pentax would have done it years ago? I take that as evidence that more was involved.

I must admit I have neither a K-1 nor the 60-250, on the other hand I have read several posts from people who say their lens works well on FF with the baffle removed. Perhaps there is an adverse effect, e.g., increased internal reflection.

Doug

There was a test done on pentaxforums, baffle in place, baffle removed and modified baffle, the modified baffle appeared to perform better than no baffle. The baffle could cut off rays that aren't focused ideally at the edges making the edge performance appear better but with the addition of extra vignetting or it could simply be an internal reflection guard that helps with overall contrast. I think its probably a bit of both.

-- 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

Joseph Tainter Forum Pro • Posts: 11,382
Re: HD PENTAX-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR now official

Mistral75 wrote:

This Tamron lens is not an SP lens and is manufactured in Vietnam, where Tamron own a factory: Tamron Optical Việt Nam, Lô 69B và 70A, KCN Nội Bài, Xã Mai Đình, Huyện Sóc Sơn, Hà Nội (Plot No.69B & 70A, Noi Bai Industrial Zone, Mai Dinh Commune, Soc Son District, Hanoi).

https://www.tamron.com/company/tamron_group.html#vietnam

This is why the HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm f/4 ED SDM WR is manufactured in Vietnam.

Source: https://www.yaotomi.co.jp/blog/used/2020/01/-hd-pentax-d-fa-70-210mmf4ed-sdm-wr.html

Well that's a disappointment. Let's hope that Tamron's manufacturing in Vietnam is better than Pentax's.

Joe

Tom Lusk Senior Member • Posts: 1,781
Re: HD PENTAX-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR now official
4

Joseph Tainter wrote:

Mistral75 wrote:

This Tamron lens is not an SP lens and is manufactured in Vietnam, where Tamron own a factory: Tamron Optical Việt Nam, Lô 69B và 70A, KCN Nội Bài, Xã Mai Đình, Huyện Sóc Sơn, Hà Nội (Plot No.69B & 70A, Noi Bai Industrial Zone, Mai Dinh Commune, Soc Son District, Hanoi).

https://www.tamron.com/company/tamron_group.html#vietnam

This is why the HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm f/4 ED SDM WR is manufactured in Vietnam.

Source: https://www.yaotomi.co.jp/blog/used/2020/01/-hd-pentax-d-fa-70-210mmf4ed-sdm-wr.html

Well that's a disappointment. Let's hope that Tamron's manufacturing in Vietnam is better than Pentax's.

Joe

Joe - in Canada the Tamron warranty is:

Amplis Foto Inc. warrants to the original purchaser, the TAMRON lens, distributed by Amplis Foto Inc., will be free of manufacturer defects for six (6) years from the date of purchase from an authorized dealer in Canada and ten (10) years extended warranty when you register your lens by completing the form below.

It seems Tamron is quite confident in their QC.

Pentax - not so much.

Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 7,371
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
3

MightyMike wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

DougOB wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

The Patent for the 60-250mm confirms its already FF no tweaking required!

My 60-250mm sample disagrees.

Alex

That is because your beloved Pentax crippled it when they put it into production. But you could probably blame Hoya as this happened under their watch.

Irrelevant.

The fact remains, such "small" changes would be the same as making a new lens, as this is judged against the real product and its constraints, not some abstract entity on a PC.

You mean removing the baffle?

If "removing the baffle" was all it took, don't you think Pentax would have done it years ago? I take that as evidence that more was involved.

I agree more would be involved but the truth of the matter is it was designed to be a FF lens right from the beginning!

Maybe they just weren't happy with the performance on FF.  There had to be some reason, they've never been afraid to take shortcuts before.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 macro +6 more
Alex Sarbu Forum Pro • Posts: 11,743
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
1

MightyMike wrote:

Mistral75 wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

DougOB wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

The Patent for the 60-250mm confirms its already FF no tweaking required!

My 60-250mm sample disagrees.

Alex

That is because your beloved Pentax crippled it when they put it into production. But you could probably blame Hoya as this happened under their watch.

Irrelevant.

The fact remains, such "small" changes would be the same as making a new lens, as this is judged against the real product and its constraints, not some abstract entity on a PC.

You mean removing the baffle?

If "removing the baffle" was all it took, don't you think Pentax would have done it years ago? I take that as evidence that more was involved.

I agree more would be involved but the truth of the matter is it was designed to be a FF lens right from the beginning!

Several long lenses were launched during the APS-C era that, according to the corresponding patent, were designed for a 24x36 image circle: this one, the 200mm f/2.8, the 300mm f/4 and the 560mm f/5.6.

All of them, but this one, are now qualified as 24x36 lenses by Ricoh. There must be a reason. Most probably the image quality on the borders hasn't been considered as satisfactory.

I concur and with the baffle in place the vignetting at some focal lengths is a bit higher than desirable on FF

It's mechanical vignetting i.e. black corners. Not "a bit higher" but completely unacceptable.

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 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited +8 more
Alex Sarbu Forum Pro • Posts: 11,743
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all

DougOB wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

The Patent for the 60-250mm confirms its already FF no tweaking required!

My 60-250mm sample disagrees.

Alex

That is because your beloved Pentax crippled it when they put it into production. But you could probably blame Hoya as this happened under their watch.

Irrelevant.

The fact remains, such "small" changes would be the same as making a new lens, as this is judged against the real product and its constraints, not some abstract entity on a PC.

You mean removing the baffle?

Doug

Obviously not. I've made a list in a previous post, you might want to look for 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 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited +8 more
Alex Sarbu Forum Pro • Posts: 11,743
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
1

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

The Patent for the 60-250mm confirms its already FF no tweaking required!

My 60-250mm sample disagrees.

Alex

That is because your beloved Pentax crippled it when they put it into production. But you could probably blame Hoya as this happened under their watch.

Irrelevant.

The fact remains, such "small" changes would be the same as making a new lens, as this is judged against the real product and its constraints, not some abstract entity on a PC.

Alex

The Patent doesn't lie, no "small" changes necessary

You still don't get it. I'll repeat one more time. This is about the real product, not some virtual entity existing in someone's computer. The real product is not FF compatible.

And the real product include optics which can't be modified by someone clicking on a PC; include the barrel as it was produced; an AF motor (hopelessly outdated); an aperture mechanism (outdated)...

So, yeah, extensive changes would be required.

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 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited +8 more
MightyMike Forum Pro • Posts: 40,634
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
1

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Mistral75 wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

DougOB wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

The Patent for the 60-250mm confirms its already FF no tweaking required!

My 60-250mm sample disagrees.

Alex

That is because your beloved Pentax crippled it when they put it into production. But you could probably blame Hoya as this happened under their watch.

Irrelevant.

The fact remains, such "small" changes would be the same as making a new lens, as this is judged against the real product and its constraints, not some abstract entity on a PC.

You mean removing the baffle?

If "removing the baffle" was all it took, don't you think Pentax would have done it years ago? I take that as evidence that more was involved.

I agree more would be involved but the truth of the matter is it was designed to be a FF lens right from the beginning!

Several long lenses were launched during the APS-C era that, according to the corresponding patent, were designed for a 24x36 image circle: this one, the 200mm f/2.8, the 300mm f/4 and the 560mm f/5.6.

All of them, but this one, are now qualified as 24x36 lenses by Ricoh. There must be a reason. Most probably the image quality on the borders hasn't been considered as satisfactory.

I concur and with the baffle in place the vignetting at some focal lengths is a bit higher than desirable on FF

It's mechanical vignetting i.e. black corners. Not "a bit higher" but completely unacceptable.

Alex

Sorry forgot YMMV

-- 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

MightyMike Forum Pro • Posts: 40,634
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
1

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

The Patent for the 60-250mm confirms its already FF no tweaking required!

My 60-250mm sample disagrees.

Alex

That is because your beloved Pentax crippled it when they put it into production. But you could probably blame Hoya as this happened under their watch.

Irrelevant.

The fact remains, such "small" changes would be the same as making a new lens, as this is judged against the real product and its constraints, not some abstract entity on a PC.

Alex

The Patent doesn't lie, no "small" changes necessary

You still don't get it. I'll repeat one more time. This is about the real product, not some virtual entity existing in someone's computer. The real product is not FF compatible.

And the real product include optics which can't be modified by someone clicking on a PC; include the barrel as it was produced; an AF motor (hopelessly outdated); an aperture mechanism (outdated)...

So, yeah, extensive changes would be required.

Alex

They could simply launch a mark II lens with a few not so extensive changes but on this point you and I will not agree so how about we stop this endlessness and move on.

-- 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: 7,371
Re: I don't understand 70-210/4 … at all
3

MightyMike wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

The Patent doesn't lie, no "small" changes necessary

You still don't get it. I'll repeat one more time. This is about the real product, not some virtual entity existing in someone's computer. The real product is not FF compatible.

And the real product include optics which can't be modified by someone clicking on a PC; include the barrel as it was produced; an AF motor (hopelessly outdated); an aperture mechanism (outdated)...

So, yeah, extensive changes would be required.

Alex

They could simply launch a mark II lens with a few not so extensive changes but on this point you and I will not agree so how about we stop this endlessness and move on.

I'm with Alex on this one - the patent is theoretical, the actual produced lens is what counts.  The finished lens isn't necessarily identical to the patent, as long as it's close enough to be clearly covered by it.

It's possible that the major expense is not the engineering, but the creation of a new production line.  If just one thing changes, it will probably require new molds for the casing just for starters.

Again, the simple fact that they didn't do an update of the 60-250 means they didn't think it was their best option.  We will never know for sure why that was.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 macro +6 more
skorpionet Junior Member • Posts: 34
Re: Tamron

asahi man wrote:

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.

Results of the comparison?

 skorpionet's gear list:skorpionet's gear list
Pentax K-1 II Pentax K-r Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 macro +17 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads