12-23-2011, 11:18 AM
[quote name='Kunzite' timestamp='1324632043' post='14037']
Come on...
Of course Pentax (and not only them) have the technical ability to make lenses as good and even better than the best Zeiss. But being technically able to and being able to make it a commercially viable product are different things. Pentax have to work within some cost limits.
Zeiss themselves have to abide similar cost constraints.
Now, about Tokina: what makes you so sure it isn't the other way around? Afaik most of those lenses are actually Pentax designs. The 18-250 is indeed a Tamron.
And for your information, all DA Limiteds but the DA 40mm are brand new designs; DA 14mm, DA* 55mm, DFA 100 macro and I believe also the 300mm f/4 are new designs as well. The D FA645 lenses are new as well.
Please read a little bit around before deciding Pentax can't make lenses.
arv, Pentax never stated FF is not in their plans (which doesn't means it is)
I believe it's much more likely with Ricoh than with Hoya; but I'm not holding my breath.
[/quote]
Hello,
I'm not Petax expert. I have one question for one of above mentioned lens- DFA 100 macro.
What is the difference between Old Tokina 100 macro, the new Tokina ATX 100 Macro, the old Pentax DA100macro and the new DFA 100 Macro?
According to me they all have the same optical design, Somewhere in DFA review Klaus mentioned better contrast of DFA while resolution an build quality is step back, but all o them have the same number of elements.
As already mentioned I have never touched Pentax lens but I'm happy owner of Tokina ATX100 Macro CAF. The lens is assembled in India but lens groups /3 in total /are made in Japan. it makes me to think that all four lenses ises the same lens group, while assembly and outlook varies.
thanks in advance
Come on...
Of course Pentax (and not only them) have the technical ability to make lenses as good and even better than the best Zeiss. But being technically able to and being able to make it a commercially viable product are different things. Pentax have to work within some cost limits.
Zeiss themselves have to abide similar cost constraints.
Now, about Tokina: what makes you so sure it isn't the other way around? Afaik most of those lenses are actually Pentax designs. The 18-250 is indeed a Tamron.
And for your information, all DA Limiteds but the DA 40mm are brand new designs; DA 14mm, DA* 55mm, DFA 100 macro and I believe also the 300mm f/4 are new designs as well. The D FA645 lenses are new as well.
Please read a little bit around before deciding Pentax can't make lenses.
arv, Pentax never stated FF is not in their plans (which doesn't means it is)
I believe it's much more likely with Ricoh than with Hoya; but I'm not holding my breath.
[/quote]
Hello,
I'm not Petax expert. I have one question for one of above mentioned lens- DFA 100 macro.
What is the difference between Old Tokina 100 macro, the new Tokina ATX 100 Macro, the old Pentax DA100macro and the new DFA 100 Macro?
According to me they all have the same optical design, Somewhere in DFA review Klaus mentioned better contrast of DFA while resolution an build quality is step back, but all o them have the same number of elements.
As already mentioned I have never touched Pentax lens but I'm happy owner of Tokina ATX100 Macro CAF. The lens is assembled in India but lens groups /3 in total /are made in Japan. it makes me to think that all four lenses ises the same lens group, while assembly and outlook varies.
thanks in advance