Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-31-2016, 10:21 AM   #16
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,574
QuoteOriginally posted by serothis Quote
It just irks me that we pay more for less.
I tend to look at it the opposite way... Nikon and Canon users have to buy more expensive versions of their native lenses if they want image stabilisation. We get that benefit with every lens we buy, including all the old glass that we can acquire so inexpensively. I think we get more for less in most... not all, but most... situations.

08-31-2016, 10:33 AM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,991
QuoteOriginally posted by serothis Quote
Not really. Deciding whether or not to make a lens in a certain mount only speaks to the total profitability not which combination of price and features is the most profitable.
I'm just a simple fellow and do not understand high finance so to me if you lose money making something you either increase the price or stop making it. At any rate I have no idea what you meant by that.
08-31-2016, 10:41 AM   #18
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
We do not know whether it is more profitable, less profitable or equivalent profit to offer a separate design that lacks a feature offered for other mounts for the comparatively low volume K-mount lenses.
Right. We have no way of knowing.

QuoteOriginally posted by serothis Quote
But if they're talking about not making their lenses with a k-mount, clearly their current strategy is not profitable.
Correct, but is it because Pentax mount lenses in general aren't profitable, or because they don't knock off a few bucks for the non-inclusion of OS? Again, we have no way of knowing.
They, like any company, are going to do what their best information tells them will maximize profits.
08-31-2016, 01:20 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,043
Having the SR in the camera only is a simple, efficient way to have a suitable operating system without having unnecessary complications. The lens operation is streamlined, and all Pentax lenses available have an SR system to work with.

08-31-2016, 01:43 PM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 558
My question is why does Pentax not offer OS in lenses like the DA* 70-200 and D-FA150-450? I think someone who is shopping lenses in this price range would pony up the extra bucks for the clearly superior stabilization that OS delivers in a telephoto lens.I have a friend who purchased a Sigma 50-500 lens with OS and i was just blown away by how effective it is even at 500mm hand held.Pentax could at least offer it in some of the higher end telephoto lenses to test the waters, let the consumer decide what they want and what they are willing to pay to get it.
08-31-2016, 02:11 PM   #21
Forum Member




Join Date: May 2016
Location: Hastings UK
Posts: 58
I'm pretty sure that if Pentax added OS to their lenses people would complaain about paying twice for the same function. What might make sense is adding an accelerometer to the longer lenses that overrides the one in the body. The larger displacements experienced at the front of the lens might result in more accurate IS for a minimal cost.
08-31-2016, 06:05 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Perrineville, NJ
Posts: 1,375
Like Sony, Panasonic also now has dual IS in the GX85/GX80, combining OIS with IBIS. It is incredibly effective across all focal lengths. It is just as effective for stills as it is for video.

So yes, it can be done.

08-31-2016, 08:33 PM   #23
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 964
QuoteOriginally posted by serothis Quote
I guess It would be nice to have more options. And if pentax could come up with a protocol to get in lens stabilization and SR to work together that could be huge.
Ricoh are interested in selling Pentax lenses, not helping Sigma (etc) compete more easily.

I think it would only make sense for Ricoh to have a combined in-lens plus in-body stabilization protocol if they launched their own lenses with in-lens stabilization.

Then, would they have two version of various lenses, one with and one without in-lens stabilization? Or have just one version which they sell at a higher price than if it didn't have in-lens stabilization? Or what?

In the meantime, I want Ricoh to put their limited design and development resources into adding to the various benefits of moving-sensor technology, and towards launching more lenses.
09-01-2016, 02:20 AM   #24
Veteran Member
Saltwater Images's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Newfoundland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 501
I wrote to Sigma Corporation by email a couple of months ago asking if there was any plan to release the 50-100 f/1.8 Art in K-Mount? If there was I was planning on buying the 18-35 f/1.8 Art and was willing to pre-order the 50-100. Sigma explained that there wasn't any plan at the time to release the 50-100 in K-Mount. What I did learn through correspondence was that making a lens in K-Mount wasn't straight forward. Current Canon and Nikon mounts use electronic contacts to communicate and control the lens. Unlike Canon and Nikon, the K-Mount has evolved (instead of changing) and uses a combination of electrical and mechanical contacts to communicate with and control the lens. The new 55-300 is the first lens to rely entirely on electronic communication and it only works with the K-1 and K-3II.

Long story in short form: the cost for 3rd party manufacturers to make a lens available in a backward compatible K-Mount for a modest sized consumer group on a small production run is higher. Tooling a production line to do this is costly. I can only surmise that the slight cost savings in removing the in-lens stabilization helps offset some of the cost of producing a lens in backward compatible K-Mount.
09-01-2016, 02:49 AM   #25
Senior Member
Timd's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cape Town, SA
Posts: 262
With the new KAF4 mount that does away with the mechanical aperture link, does that mean that Sigma will be easily (cheaply?) able to convert its lenses to allow Pentax K1, K70, KS2, K3II users to enjoy the new Sigma's? Or will this incompatibility with the K5, K3, etc. cause more of a headache to Sigma?
09-01-2016, 03:07 AM   #26
Veteran Member
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,310
I'm not sure it's even a case of if making the lens for pentax is profitable or not. It could be simply that the company resources can be just directed at a MORE profitable range of activities.... such as making more lenses in Sony mounts.
09-01-2016, 03:25 AM   #27
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
I'm not sure it's even a case of if making the lens for pentax is profitable or not. It could be simply that the company resources can be just directed at a MORE profitable range of activities.... such as making more lenses in Sony mounts.
Sigma do very little in E mount, actually. They've been burnt in A mount, too.



09-01-2016, 05:00 AM - 1 Like   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,276
KAF4 is likely the future for K-mount. If it is more cost effective for Sigma it is also more cost effective for Pentax. If I am not mistaken, the aperture lever assembly is unique to each lens (I know it is so for manual lenses) so there's likely no economy of scale using mechanical aperture coupling, but there likely is for electronic.

Once the 'installed base' of KAF4-enabled bodies in the market is large enough 3rd party makers might be able to release lenses in that mount.

See paragraph 9 of my post HERE RE: 3rd-Party lens makers.

Last edited by monochrome; 09-01-2016 at 07:32 AM.
09-01-2016, 05:00 AM   #29
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 964
QuoteOriginally posted by Saltwater Images Quote
The new 55-300 is the first lens to rely entirely on electronic communication and it only works with the K-1 and K-3II.
"Cameras compatible with this system: PENTAX K-70, K-1, K-3 II, K-S2 and K-S1"

---------- Post added 1st Sep 2016 at 01:42 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Once the number of KAF4-enabled bodies in the market is large enough 3rd party makers might be able to release lenses in that mount.
I wonder if Sigma (etc) take buying patterns into account?

For example, how likely is it that people with 2013 and earlier cameras, (which are the ones that don't support the KAF4 mount), are important potential customers for new Sigma lenses?
09-01-2016, 05:44 AM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 538
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
Ricoh are interested in selling Pentax lenses, not helping Sigma (etc) compete more easily.

I think it would only make sense for Ricoh to have a combined in-lens plus in-body stabilization protocol if they launched their own lenses with in-lens stabilization.

Then, would they have two version of various lenses, one with and one without in-lens stabilization? Or have just one version which they sell at a higher price than if it didn't have in-lens stabilization? Or what?

In the meantime, I want Ricoh to put their limited design and development resources into adding to the various benefits of moving-sensor technology, and towards launching more lenses.
I disagree. Ricoh/Pentax doesn't disable SR when a 3rd party lens is mounted. A tandem solution would be no different. On top of that, having a tandem use of ILIS and IBIS would further give pentax something that other brands like Nikon and Canon, don’t have.

My 2nd thought is, I think pentax, to some degree, should be in the business of making sigma (and tamron) more profitable. One of the biggest criticisms of pentax by non-pentax users is the lack of lens options. The more profitable the k-mount is for 3rd party companies the more likely they’ll make it. and ultimately the more attractive the pentax system becomes to users. It’s symbiotic relationship. I know Ricoh would ideally have all their users have only pentax bodies and lenses but they shouldn't underestimate the value of 3rd party support.

*Word of caution, this discussion is tickling the engineer in me*

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
base, cameras, companies remove in-lens, image, k-1, k-mount, k-mount version, lens, lenses, pentax, pentax lens, people, rate, ricoh, sales, sigma, slr lens, sr, stabilization, stabilization in k-mount, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-3 and in-lens stabilization archetwist Video Recording and Processing 44 02-09-2016 12:31 PM
Why do 3rd party lenses vary so much in price between different mounts? Outis Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 12-01-2014 07:00 PM
K Mount lenses with Image Stabilization? ZombieArmy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 09-04-2014 12:29 AM
Image Stabilization in Pentax Cameras Kenntak Pentax DSLR Discussion 53 07-27-2013 10:54 PM
Why there is no Zeiss K-mount lens in lens database henryjing Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 05-18-2010 01:39 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:59 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top