Image on top: The Hoya-Pentax 17mm f/2.0 Micro Four Thirds lens patent
Two days ago I posted a rumor about Tokina making two new Micro Four Thirds lenses which should be unveiled at the PMA show in November. The two lenses are the 17mm f/2.0 (or faster) and the 8-16mm/3.5-4.5 (or faster and with the body quality of the current [shoplink 19059 ebay]Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens[/shoplink]). Now we just noticed a very interesting “coincidence”. In recent years, Tokina has become a partner of Pentax, division of Hoya Corporation and jointly developed some lenses. And thanks to a discussion we had with one of our readers it came in our mind that a few months ago Pentax-Hoya fulfilled a patent for a 17mm f/2.0 Micro Four Thirds lens (Source: Egami). So if 1+1 makes 2 can we conclude that Pentax and Hoya are interested in joining the Micro Four Thirds world as lens maker (under the Tokina brand)? It looks like the answer is yes. But the one million dollar question is: Will this partnership go further and will Pentax join the MFT coalition? Probably not….or no? 🙂
38 Responses
Yes please – happy to sign the business plan authorisation……
The more I think about it the more I think it unlikely that Pentax make a u4/3 camera, however there are rumours that Pentax is bringing out a mirrorless Auto 110 which infers a mirrorless digital camera with interchangeable lenses and a sensor of similar size to u4/3..
So my complete guess is if that is true they will do as they do know, Pentax release their own proprietary mount with lenses and then Tokina re-badge the lenses and sell them to u4/3 users.. Just like they currently do with many of their ‘jointly developed’ APS-C lenses (one of the reasons I left Pentax)…
I think it is madness as we just end up with too many mounts and I don’t see why Pentax would succeed when their lenses are available to u4/3 users also through Tokina re-badging, but it would not surprise me in the slightest.. As long as we get more lens choices, who cares??
Too many mounts isn’t madness. While in a perfect world every manufacturer could agree on one or two mounts (like they did with the hot shoe), the camera world has never been that way with regards to lens mounts. There are some legitimate reasons for creating different mounts. Sensor size being the most obvious. The Sony E-Mount was supposedly design for a possible full frame camera for example where as that’s not possible with the m4/3’s mount. Also, from a business standpoint one could argue that it’s good to lock people into your own mount. Of course the counter is you’d attract more customers by using a shared mount.
That said, if I had my choice every mirrorless camera would either use the E-Mount or m4/3’s mount, because I think both Sony and Pannalympus did it right, but that’s not going to happen.
This would obviously be non compliant with Pentax – and others big ones – policy up to now, but times have changed and it would make a huge benefit for a body manufacturer to invest an already existing lens park.
I would bet on their cleverness and, as said by Joêl, we would get additional lenses in any case !
Strangely enough, I feel that Pentax is the linchpin in m43. One more major player would give the consortium needed momentum – but one less major player is a big setback. We know that we can’t count on Nikon or Canon – so Pentax is a big deal.
C’mon Pentax – what’s the point? Join us baby…
..oh and by the way..welcome Tokina. You make great lenses…go with the flow, please…
Anyway, more lenses joining M4/3 are welcomed.
Hope that Tokina prime fits on my PEN!
Sorry to say, but Pentax is not really a big player anymore. Here are the 2010 sales statistics for Japan:
http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2010/12/yearly-sales-statistics-from-japan.html
Of course, this list only contains the most selling 20 camera types. There could be more Pentax models lurking in the sub-20 category.
Pentax have retained a marketshare, but it is small.
You could always get one of these:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/631778-REG/Olympus_261502_M_Zuiko_Digital_17mm_f2_8.html
Sorry, that was meant for Reply to McPix.
Pentax only offers two DSLR bodies (three if you count the $10,000 645D), and one of them was in the top 10 last year. I’d venture to guess they’re pretty happy with that. Besides, with Pentax, much like with Leica, who cares about market percentage? I surely don’t. All I care is that they make a profit so they stay in business and keep on producing excellent products. Market share or not Pentax would be a huge bonus to m4/3’s.
I agree with Joel. I suppose Pentax is going to play the same identical-lens-different-mount APS-C game with 4/3 sensor. But in order to get the sensor, they have to make some native lenses in return … I do hope they will make m4/3 bodies, but doubt it. They may be small, but they are one of those companies satisfied with their market share, they’re not Sony. On the other hand, they may be small, but are respected and have a devoted user ( fan ) base.
But the patents specify lens designs with a 21.6mm imaging circle, which is exactly the imaging circle of m4/3. Using a smaller sensor than those in the DSLR’s would make sense for Pentax to protect their upward trend in recent times.
Another option is that Pentax make a 4/3sensor based mirrorless with different mount and connectors (like different APS-C sized mount systems). But it would be much more sensible to join the m4/3 system (at least for us users). Either way, it would be good to further establish m4/3 and the sensor size as a standard.
“Another option is that Pentax make a 4/3sensor based mirrorless with different mount and connectors (like different APS-C sized mount systems).”
That is exactly what I think will happen, but I hope it won’t ( maybe my post was a bit confusing ).
Why is market share so important in camera business? Would a Pentax K-5 serve me any worse than Nikon D7000? Although I agree that it is quite unlikely that we will se a Pentax m43 camera, I would think that a m43 Pentax would be quite interesting.
“Why is market share so important in camera business?”
Bigger share = bigger volume = better lens selection, better availability, possibly lower street prices, possibly a better support network…
It’s all circular. The more people are confident a system is going to survive and grow, the more people will buy into that system, which will cause the system to survive and grow, and so on.
Yes, I agree that Pentax is respected among fans. And for a good reason. Since K10D, they have mostly made sensible, affordable cameras. Photographers’ cameras, with good ergnomics, good list of features.
I am not happy with the lenses, though. Since switching to m4/3, my images have become much, much sharper.
Does this patent design drawing suggest that the new Tokina 17mm/f2 will be compact pancake size somewhere between the Pany 20/f1.7 and 14/2.5 or be more conventional size and design pared down? The earlier rumor that it might be 25% cheaper is encouraging!
Most of the responses to this post seem to stress out the unlikeliness of Pentax joining m4/3. However, from the Pentax point of view it actually makes sense: why invest vast resources in the development of a brand new mount with the same sensor size when all the technology is already in place? Pentax is not a large company. In fact, Hoya has been looking for a strategic partner to keep it in business. If they want to compete in the mirrorless segment of the market, joining an established standard would make a sensible move. I think that Panasonic and Olympus would welcome someone like Pentax, but I may be wrong.
Mirrorless cameras are about nostalgia, at least for those traditional camera makers like Pentax and Olympus. Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic, however are electronic gigants without heritage to spin on.
So, Pentax might leverage on their Auto 110 film products. With a sensor size similar to FT, they have to find the sensor manufacturer. Obvious choice is Pentax, but might be other surprises as well. Could be Aptina, Canon, Sony, Samsung or Panasonic?
why 17mm f2.0!!?
we have a 17 2.8 and a 20 1.7 and 14 2.5
does anyone else think it’s a bit redundant? unless it was a 17 1.4 or faster..
i know the classic focal lengths of 35mm and 40mm are popular but why not a 10mm or 12mm f1.4 🙁
Because such a lens would be huge and very expensive to make.
discontinue the Olympus 17/2.8 … and have an Olympus branded 17/2 (made by Tokina)
Remember that Pentax & Samsung used to be best friends, was it the Pentax 10D that was also out as a Samsung GX10 – same lens mount, with lens swapping between the two. But didn’t they fall out? big time??
So, what do Pentax do now:
– join Samsung NX … if they still talk to each other?
– join m43 … would be good for us!
– go solo … good luck with that, Nikon is coming!
If this Hoya/Tokina/Pentax lens patent is m43 perhaps this is Pentax indicating that they are joining in. Or maybe its a lens for two mounts (is there enough room in this market yet for Tokina to mess about with two new mounts, I don’t think so).
The Pentax fan club (and this reads the same for Nikon joining m43 too – wish) … it can ONLY be good for Pentax to join m43. Its good for them. And its good for current m43 owners. It makes so much sense. People dedicated to the Pentax name can buy the Pentax m43 camera and lenses – and stop there if they want to. If one of those users buys an Oly/Pan lens then Oly/Pan are happy. People might want an Oly body and a Pentax lens = good for Oly (and Pentax), this is just like an E-P1 + 20/1.7!
As for Nikon … if Nikon join m43, they protect their big FX chip and also their D7000 line. At the low end (which is where most of their sles will be now in the D3000/D5000) they can offer a.n.other option: m43. I think given that the DX only lenses don’t work in FX, I can’t see Nikon wanting to confuse people too much – so a 3rd mount might be a difficult marketing thing?
> “it came in our mind that a few months ago Pentax-Hoya fulfilled a patent for a 17mm f/2.0 Micro Four Thirds lens (Source: Egami)”
I’m not so sure the Pentax patent reproted by Egami is for Micro Four Thirds lenses.
Indeed, the patent application for the three lenses with an image circle of 21.6mm (8mm f/2.8, 17mm f/2 and 14mm f/2.8) was filled by Pentax on 4 November 2008.
The µ4/3 system was announced by Panasonic and Olympus on 5 August 2008, only four months before.
Either Pentax was well informed / very quick in developing the corresponding formulas or (more probably) these three lenses are meant for 4/3 bodies, not µ4/3 ones.
“Reported”, not “reproted”, sorry for the typo.
or the 17/2.8 + 14/2.5 that we have today were designed by hoya?!?!
I meant tokina and to put: 2008!!!
“the patent application for the three lenses was filled by Pentax on 4 November 2008.
The µ4/3 system was announced by Panasonic and Olympus on 5 August 2008, only four months before.
Either Pentax was well informed / very quick in developing the corresponding formulas or (more probably) these three lenses are meant for 4/3 bodies, not µ4/3 ones.”
Do you really think the third party equipment manufacturers get new product specifications the day it is announced? I believe Panasonic engineers were working on m4/3 products already in 2006, if not 2005 and all the other manufacturers were informed of the specifications long before G1 launch in August 2008.
“Do you really think the third party equipment manufacturers get new product specifications the day it is announced? I believe Panasonic engineers were working on m4/3 products already in 2006, if not 2005 and all the other manufacturers were informed of the specifications long before G1 launch in August 2008.
Do you really think that a competitor like Pentax was made aware by Panasonic of their µ4/3 project any day before its announcement in August 2008???
I do not.
maybe Hoya (who owns both Pentax & Tokina) struck an agreement with Panasonic by which Tokina is allowed to make m4/3 lenses “in return for” Pentax uses Panasonic-made 4/3 sensor in their rumored 110 mirrorless regardless of whether or not this 110 mirrorless is simply m4/3 or different mount with the same sensor size. This would be a give-and-take agreement beneficial to both Hoya and Panasonic, it looks like Panasonic is more open to m4/3 partners who make lenses/adapters than those who might want to make their own 4/3 sensor (eg Fuji or Sigma’s Foveon, joining m4/3 makes a lot of sense for both and was highly expected for Fuji but just didn’t materialize, at least not yet).
Pentax definitely belongs to Hoya but Tokina (a formerly independent company founded by former Nikon engineers) belongs to Kenko, a company that has commercial agreements with Hoya (the same lens filters are sold under the brand name Kenko in Japan and Hoya overseas) but does not belong to Hoya.
while there is no definitive proof of Hoya owns Tokina, many people think/say so (i am not the first one)! and at least there is a very strong relationship (including possibly Hoya being shareholder in Tokina) between the two companies with and without Pentax in the mix, check the Wikipedia article on Tokina and the following pentax-forums thread (particularly the post in the link):
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/38669-structure-hoya-corporation-myth-about-tokina.html#post360784
also this:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/117464-dc-motor-tech-tokina-tokina-pentax-relationship-5.html#post1217784
If Pentax made a micro 4/3 body with in-body image stabilization and wireless flash control, then I’d welcome them. They are in a remarkably similar position to Olympus and would do well to join forces with micro 4/3– and it would be a very good idea for them to build a micro 4/3 to Pentax mount electronic adapter, or include extra pins in their camera for digital communications with such an adapter.
Like Olympus, Pentax makes good glass but never really cracked out of third place. I think the competition and the additional creative input would be a benefit to both companies, rather than simply a competitive relationship. Quite a few Olympus u43 camera owners would love some Pentax gear, and vice versa, so it would justify a new camera purchase from either group.
Some people have speculated that the Pentax patent for a 14mm f/2.8 lens is the basis on which the Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 lens was based. We remember that Panasonic originally announced this lens as f/2.8.
I have compared the lens designs, and in fact, they look rather similar:
http://m43photo.blogspot.com/…01/pentax-lens-design-patents-related-to.html
However, I am not really competent enough within this field to know if this could be a coincidence, or if it proves anything.
Sorry, this is the right URL:
http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2011/01/pentax-lens-design-patents-related-to.html
I’d love to get the wide tokina for my gf1, if it will be cost less than an Oly…
I really want a 8-9mm, but don’t want to pay more then 300$ for it…