[Spodeworld]

I am making an appeal to my fellow Pentaxians to contact Sigma, en masse, and request that they put OS into their Pentax mount lenses. They don't because they claim that Pentax users don't want it.

And, because of this:
1. They have to remove it for Pentax lenses. I was informed by them that this means that the optical/mechanical formula and manufacturing process have to be changed to remove what was already included in their Canon and Nikon mounts. They said that this is not good for them as it raises their costs (it costs more to take the functionality out!).
2. We lose the advantages of OS, which is reputed to be better at longer focal lengths than IBIS. It could make handholding at longer focal lengths easier as well as stabilize the image in the viewfinder. Plus, for those who do video, you could use the OS instead of IBIS, which, I believe would give a smoother outcome...a reduction in the 'jello effect' I believe.

I think that having it would be great, because it would give us the option of which to use. Select one or the other, depending on which works best for the situation. Maybe you don't want it on shorter FL but you do on longer. Maybe you want to use the 2-second timer and have stabilization. Right now, the camera turns IBIS off when you do that. You'd have the choice at least.

Please think about it. Why should Canon and Nikon have all the advantages?!?

They told me that they do not check the message boards, so it would have to be a direct appeal.

In the US you could contact them through the following webform:

Contact Us | Sigma Corporation of America

Thanks!

[sholtzma]

May I suggest that you create a petition (online or on paper) that you then submit to Sigma?

[stevebrot]

Many of us don't want it since it adds weight and complicates work-flow when using multiple lenses.


Steve

[lytrytyr]

Don't forget that optical stabilization degrades the IQ slightly.
It's basically intentional decentering.

With Tamron, for example, the A16 17-50 zoom
is generally better regarded than the B005 OS version.

[Adam]

I am making an appeal to my fellow Pentaxians to contact Sigma, en masse, and request that they put OS into their Pentax mount lenses. They don't because they claim that Pentax users don't want it.

And, because of this:
1. They have to remove it for Pentax lenses. I was informed by them that this means that the optical/mechanical formula and manufacturing process have to be changed to remove what was already included in their Canon and Nikon mounts. They said that this is not good for them as it raises their costs (it costs more to take the functionality out!).
2. We lose the advantages of OS, which is reputed to be better at longer focal lengths than IBIS. It could make handholding at longer focal lengths easier as well as stabilize the image in the viewfinder. Plus, for those who do video, you could use the OS instead of IBIS, which, I believe would give a smoother outcome...a reduction in the 'jello effect' I believe.

I think that having it would be great, because it would give us the option of which to use. Select one or the other, depending on which works best for the situation. Maybe you don't want it on shorter FL but you do on longer. Maybe you want to use the 2-second timer and have stabilization. Right now, the camera turns IBIS off when you do that. You'd have the choice at least.

Please think about it. Why should Canon and Nikon have all the advantages?!?

They told me that they do not check the message boards, so it would have to be a direct appeal.

In the US you could contact them through the following webform:

Contact Us | Sigma Corporation of America

Thanks!

I honestly don't think they should. Yes, it would be nice in high-end sports lenses, but those aren't even available in the K-mount.

Think of the average user. If they end up forgetting to disable the OS on the lens, it will conflict with SR and lead to blurry photos. Most probably don't even know how to disable the SR in-camera, or why it would be necessary.

[stevebrot]

I would suggest that if we bug Sigma about anything, it should be to add Pentax mount to a broader portion of their lineup. I would love to see the 70-200/2.8 available again in Pentax mount.


Steve

[AquaDome]

I bet if you ordered ten-thousand of them and prepaid, they would get right on it.

I like Sigma lenses a lot. I don't think I would pay extra for their OS system.
I did not see any difference between Canon VR and Nikon IS compared to Pentax SR, other than with Pentax you only pay for it once instead of with every lens. If Canon or Nikon had seemed to me to have a clear advantage at the time, I might not have sold off those systems.

[Steve.Ledger]

Think of the average user. If they end up forgetting to disable the OS on the lens, it will conflict with SR and lead to blurry photos. Most probably don't even know how to disable the SR in-camera, or why it would be necessary.

Wow, Adam. Are you saying the average Pentax user are numbskulls who don't know how to use the basic features of their cameras!?
A little condescending of you..

[Driline]

Wow, Adam. Are you saying the average Pentax user are numbskulls who don't know how to use the basic features of their cameras!?

Look no further than my little brother Ray.

[luftfluss]

Wow, Adam. Are you saying the average Pentax user are numbskulls who don't know how to use the basic features of their cameras!?
A little condescending of you..

Y'know, I don't socialize too often with other photogs, but I have never personally encountered an ILC user who did not seem to be at least somewhat informed about his/her camera brand.

So in my (limited) experience, I agree with you: its condescending to suggest folks don't understand the principal features of their "advanced" cameras.

[hcc]

I would suggest that if we bug Sigma about anything, it should be to add Pentax mount to a broader portion of their lineup. I would love to see the 70-200/2.8 available again in Pentax mount.

I agree strongly with Steve. The most important issue is the lack of Pentax mount for too many new Sigma lenses.

[stevebrot]

Wow, Adam. Are you saying the average Pentax user are numbskulls who don't know how to use the basic features of their cameras!?
A little condescending of you..

I don't see that he said that at all. General use of the SR feature is quite transparent. Most people who buy Pentax never think about SR and are unaware of the fine points of when it might be good to have it turned off, when it does not work well, or how to use it with OS lenses. That being said, I will admit that my perception might be skewed somewhat by the questions I have fielded on this site over the last 7+ years.


Steve

[lesmore49]

I have the Sigma OS system in my Sigma lens. It's a 150-500 and I have OS 1 + 2. I've used it, it works fine, but I'd rather keep is shut off and continue to use just my Pentax SR system.

[kiwi_jono]

Its not something I care about either way (leave it in or take it out).

Ideally the lenses would be designed with out OS due to the typically associated extra cost, size, weight and complexity. Sadly its becoming pretty standard for 3rd party lenses to have OS but thats happening less often thanks to Nikon / Canon popularity.

[promacjoe]

I have the Sigma OS system in my Sigma lens. It's a 150-500 and I have OS 1 + 2. I've used it, it works fine, but I'd rather keep is shut off and continue to use just my Pentax SR system.

I have the same lens, and the only time I use OS is when I use a tele-converter. Stabilizing the image before it gets to the tele-converter, helps. But that's very rare. Normally I just use it on a tripod. SR seems to work just as well as OS in any other situation.

If it costs them more to remove the OS then they should leave it in. I don't really care one way or the other.
What I wish they would do, offer more of their lenses in the K Mount. give us an even playing field so to speak. if they can offer it in the Sony mount, they should offer it for the Pentax mount.