[jatrax]

sure wouldn't until they turn the ship and get it headed in hopefully the right direction its going in now.....but is it too little too late ? Im afraid we will find out in the next few years.....for the better or for the worse.

No one knows the future, but compared to 2010 things are incredibly positive. Back then we were wondering how long before Pentax closed for good. Now we have best APS-C camera on the market, new lenses arriving like clockwork, R&D starting to smile and hint that good things are coming, FF camera announced.

I really, really do not think Ricoh would drop $110 million on Pentax plus spend lots more on refurbishing plants, R&D and logistics if they thought they were going to fail. But as has been said many times before Ricoh has their own timeline, frustrating for us perhaps. And it also means companies like Sigma that made the decision to drop Pentax several years ago will not reverse that decision for several more. The same as the US retailers that dropped Pentax, it will be a long time before getting them back on board again. Years. But if Ricoh can continue to make money and put money back into R&D it will make a difference. Stop back in 5 years and see.

[ChristianRock]

Sigma sells their APSC line in K mount. And they are waiting to see how the full frame does before committing to do any FF lenses. I think that's reasonable.

The best reason to buy a Pentax camera is Pentax lenses. Third party offerings are just icing on the cake.

[Rondec]

I wouldn't worry too much. It looks to me like Ricoh has a plan and that they are growing the brand. Just because insiders at Sigma aren't privy to it doesn't mean it isn't there.

As to the whole "full frame is just a marketing gimmick," maybe so, but Sigma sells an awful lot of full frame lenses, including the 70-200 f2.8 lenses that the OP was discussing with Paul. Of course, Sigma also makes cameras and they have yet to produce a full frame Foveon sensor. If they would do so, perhaps their tune would change a little bit.

[biz-engineer]

It's a fairly good news, Pentax users are going to buy more Pentax lenses if they can't buy Sigma or Tamron lenses. Which means that it'll help Pentax sell more genuine Pentax lenses. In some ways, I think Pentax management did not do any effort to convince Sigma and Tamron to make more K mount lenses because the more Sigma and Tamron sell K mount lenses, the less revenue is made by Pentax in terms on lens sales. Regarding 70-200mm range, you can still buy Tamron 70-200 older and cheaper version, or the new Pentax DFA 70-200.

[IchabodCrane]

What I found in the business world is anecdotal evidence often precedes measurable evidence. Here's the best example I can think of.... A couple months before the US auto industry crashed at the end of 2008, I was driving on I-75 between Toledo and Detroit, a highway I often travel. What I noticed what how few vehicles, particularly trucks, were on the road. It looked decidedly "different". It was only later we learned of the huge problems in the industry.

I mention this as Sigma is likely to not see in the numbers if Pentax/Ricoh is gaining share. From what I can casually tell, there really is more interest at the photo retail level (stories of better presence for starters) so maybe Sigma's metrics will change later on to match what it *appears* is happening out there in the real world. Or... this could all be myopic wishful thinking on my part.

[dadipentak]

FYI: Paul at Sigma's service dept. in NY is probably the most technically knowledgeable person they have outside of Aizu, and among the best in the industry. He's also a longtime photographer, and a great guy. Sigma is lucky to have him!

I agree--as I've said before the Sigma service operation in NY totally rocks.

[jatrax]

I mention this as Sigma is likely to not see in the numbers if Pentax/Ricoh is gaining share. From what I can casually tell, there really is more interest at the photo retail level (stories of better presence for starters) so maybe Sigma's metrics will change later on to match what it *appears* is happening out there in the real world. Or... this could all be myopic wishful thinking on my part.

Not wishful thinking I think you are correct and said it better than I did. There is always a considerable lag between new information and company decisions based on that information. Sigma's decision re k-mount was made based on trends years ago, perhaps during Hoya perhaps even earlier. Lenses are not made on a 3-d printer that you just flip the switch on or off. Product lines take years to change / develop. Think big oil tanker not ski boat, the direction might change but it will not happen overnight or even for years.

You want Sigma to make lenses for Pentax? Go buy another Pentax body, simple. It is numbers only if the numbers go up to make it viable for Sigma they will add to the k-mount line.

[CarlJF]

A few months ago, I've read an interview with a Sigma executive who was giving the same reasons for not releasing K-mount lenses. There's a minimum number of units that has to be made in a production batch to make economical sense. For K-mount, this minimal amount isn't achieved outside of best sellers - like 17-50 zooms. If they decided to produce smaller batches for K-mount, the fixed expense for retooling the production line (needed because of the diaphragm issue explained in the original post) would be spread on a lower number of units, leading to an uncompetitive retail cost. On the other hand, if they make a normal batch, they will have to keep inventory for a long time, also leading to an uncompetitive retail cost.

Simply put, to sell a lens at a target retail price, Sigma needs to manufacture a minimum number of units and sell them inside a given timeline. Unfortunately, K-mount falls short on one or the other of these criteria. And this economic logic is the same for all third party manufacturers.

For the foreseeable future, the only way we could see these lenses in K-mount would be that Pentax buy a whole custom batch, rebadge them, and sell them under the Pentax name at a much higher price tag than the Sigma branded one.

[dadipentak]

You want Sigma to make lenses for Pentax? Go buy another Pentax body, simple. It is numbers only if the numbers go up to make it viable for Sigma they will add to the k-mount line.

Yep, buying a Pentax body is not a selfish act--you're doing it for the common good. Amirite? .

[jatrax]

Yep, buying a Pentax body is not a selfish act--you're doing it for the common good. Amirite? .

Absolutely right!!

And if everyone on this forum bought two new Pentax bodies this year Sigma would fall all over themselves making k-mount.


Maybe

[IchabodCrane]

A few months ago, I've read an interview with a Sigma executive who was giving the same reasons for not releasing K-mount lenses. There's a minimum number of units that has to be made in a production batch to make economical sense. For K-mount, this minimal amount isn't achieved outside of best sellers - like 17-50 zooms. If they decided to produce smaller batches for K-mount, the fixed expense for retooling the production line (needed because of the diaphragm issue explained in the original post) would be spread on a lower number of units, leading to an uncompetitive retail cost. On the other hand, if they make a normal batch, they will have to keep inventory for a long time, also leading to an uncompetitive retail cost.

Simply put, to sell a lens at a target retail price, Sigma needs to manufacture a minimum number of units and sell them inside a given timeline. Unfortunately, K-mount falls short on one or the other of these criteria. And this economic logic is the same for all third party manufacturers.

For the foreseeable future, the only way we could see these lenses in K-mount would be that Pentax buy a whole custom batch, rebadge them, and sell them under the Pentax name at a much higher price tag than the Sigma branded one.

Maybe there was more behind the explanation from the Sigma executive but the logic as stated is a self-fulfilling one. You won't sell a single lens in a mount unless you first produce it.

[normhead]

One of my favourite lenses, my 70 macro is a Sigma....as is my 8-16. Those are two lenses I'd rather not live without. Pentax has a 35 macro, a 50 macro a 100 macro, but no 70 macro...what's guy to do. Similarly Pentax doesn't have an 8-16 type lens. So, one photographer with two Sigma lenses, how much can a guy contribute? The rest of you all need to get out there and buy some Sigma glass. They don't care how many of us have Pentax bodies, all they care about is how much glass they sell. I've recently gone back to using my wife's 70-210 we paid $35 for. So I understand Sigma's point. The amount of legacy glass for Pentax bodies limits sales potential for all glass makers, including Pentax. The only way Pentax can remedy this is by creating a new mount... be careful what you wish for. The guy from Sigma said "we aren't getting enough money from Pentax shooters. The only way to change that is to give them more of your money. Personally, I've done my fair share. There are 4 Sigma lenses in my cupboard, 70-300 and 18-250 along with the previous two mentioned. If every member of the forum owned 4 Sigma lenses, I don't think we'd be having this problem. Y'all need to get off your butts and spend some money....

[mohb]

I bought a bargain priced 50-150 2.8 when it was discontinued years ago so it's not always bad news.

[boriscleto]

For the foreseeable future, the only way we could see these lenses in K-mount would be that Pentax buy a whole custom batch, rebadge them, and sell them under the Pentax name at a much higher price tag than the Sigma branded one.

And that's not going to happen because Ricoh already has or is planning their own competing lenses.

[jatrax]

The only way Pentax can remedy this is by creating a new mount...

Or new glass so superior to the legacy glass that people will want to upgrade. I think that is part of the design philosophy on the new DFA zooms. Make them enough better than existing that there is value there even at a high price.

The only way to change that is to give them more of your money.

True, when inventory dries up and used prices go up the production will start again.