[snake]

I love seeing this. The lens isn't small, by any stretch, but the performance at wide open? Wow. If I want compact, I'll just throw my FA35 on.

Hopefully, follow ups will have weathersealing. If that happens, I'm on line.

[ElJamoquio]

Sigma know they have some great lenses, they're not about to let other companies re-badge them. No-one would buy them anyway, as Pentax would add at least $200 to the price.

If the $200 included metal lenses, WR, and quick shift, I'd consider it a bargain upcharge.

[Winder]

As long as Sigma doesn't pay licences and reverse engineer others mounts, not a single OEM will ever use a Sigma design. This is just obvious.
You may see this as stupid but why would anyone feed a company who doesn't play by the rules with you in the first place ?

This is a sad situation but unless Sigma changes its practices, there's no solution here.

Why is Sigma not playing by the rules? They have developed their own technology and optics. They have their own patents.

[Sol Invictus]

As long as Sigma doesn't pay licences and reverse engineer others mounts, not a single OEM will ever use a Sigma design. This is just obvious.
You may see this as stupid but why would anyone feed a company who doesn't play by the rules with you in the first place ?

This is a sad situation but unless Sigma changes its practices, there's no solution here.

Isn't it what Tamron and Tokina do as well?

[thibs]

Why is Sigma not playing by the rules? They have developed their own technology and optics. They have their own patents.

Mounts are patented as well. The do not pay licences though.

[thibs]

Isn't it what Tamron and Tokina do as well?

No they do pay licences. And curiously, no compatibility problems (Pentax not concerned here AFAIK but Canon very often with Sigma lenses at least until months ago).

Some retailers simply stopped selling Sigma lenses because of the number of returns. Those returns were NOT QC problem but compatibility problems. The official Sigma politics is (or was?): lenses are certified to work with bodies available when brought to market (but not further bodies)
Then customers changed bodies, lens was out of warranty and... didn't work anymore.

[snake]

As long as Sigma doesn't pay licences and reverse engineer others mounts, not a single OEM will ever use a Sigma design. This is just obvious.
You may see this as stupid but why would anyone feed a company who doesn't play by the rules with you in the first place ?

This is a sad situation but unless Sigma changes its practices, there's no solution here.

something here doesn't sound right. One issue being of course the fact that there would be huge fines and damages to pay if Sigma was simply thumbing their noses at paying licenses. Not to mention the speculation that they are somehow reverse engineering mounts, rather than having access to the designs.

If anything, I'd guess that Sigma was simply using the age-old Japanese tradition in the imaging industry of sharing patents and technology in order to ensure the survival of their industry. Japanese firms are not as much enemies as one would think.

[vrrattko]

I think Pentax can return to being a company known for great optics. They just need to focus (no pun intended) on the right things. They will need to step outside of the cookie-cutter. If they are going to be known fro great primes them they need to do more than make the plastic fantastics. Re-design the LTD lenses with modern motors, coatings, and give people speed. Give me a D-FA* 50mm F/1.2 and a D-FA* 135mm F/1.8 with SDM-II. An excellent D-FA* 50mm F/1.2 and my Sigma 50mm F/1.4 is up for sale ASAP even if it is 2x+ the price of the Sigma. If there is one area that Pentax is behind, it is in fast, professional grade optics.

When Pentax brings the full-frame body back they will have an opportunity to design some top quality glass to go with it. If they do it right they can get back to being known for great glass. Hopefully Ricoh is putting the money into R&D.

If they come out with another $5,000 telescope, then it is probably time to move to Nikon.

Really? What is the point of D-FA* 50mm F/1.2 if you can buy DA* 55/1.4 anytime? Not to mention D-FA* 135mm F/1.8, which would have so incredible thin DOF that it would be pretty impractical to use at that aperture. (DFA 135/2,8 would be great though) The lenses you suggested are special purpose lenses, not unlike DA 560mm, only very few people will buy them. Most Pentaxians probably need more universal, multipurpose lenses, not extremities. Meanwhile I applaud to Sigma 35/1,4 ...and I am looking forward to some comparisons with FA35/2 and of course FA31/1,8 Limited.

[ElJamoquio]

135mm f/1.8 at 15 meters, Full Frame: 1.3 meter DOF
135mm f/1.8 at 30 meters, Full Frame: 5.3 meter DOF
135mm f/1.8 at 15 meters, APS-C: 0.9 meter DOF
135mm f/1.8 at 30 meters, APS-C: 3.5 meter DOF

Sounds pretty awesome, especially when you can't get as close as you like to people. I once shot an event at ~30-50 meters away (req'd) with a 70-200 f/2.8. It definitely would've been better with the 1.8, the background was quite distracting.

[TOUGEFC]

Another review up

If you own the Nikon or Canon version already...sell it. The Sigma is sharper, has less flaws

LENS REVIEW - SIGMA 35MM F1.4 DG HSM - NIKON MOUNT — jay cassario

[Winder]

Really? What is the point of D-FA* 50mm F/1.2 if you can buy DA* 55/1.4 anytime? Not to mention D-FA* 135mm F/1.8, which would have so incredible thin DOF that it would be pretty impractical to use at that aperture. (DFA 135/2,8 would be great though) The lenses you suggested are special purpose lenses, not unlike DA 560mm, only very few people will buy them. Most Pentaxians probably need more universal, multipurpose lenses, not extremities. Meanwhile I applaud to Sigma 35/1,4 ...and I am looking forward to some comparisons with FA35/2 and of course FA31/1,8 Limited.

I have a Sigma 50mm which I bought after testing 2 DA*55mm lenses. Yes.... I would love for Pentax to make a F-DA* 50mm F/1.2. I had an 85L when I was still using Canon and loved it. Yes, DoF is very thin, and only practical for certain applications. Yes, I would buy one if it is sharp enough and has a fst accurate AF.

If you think the 135mm F/1.8 is to thin then you need to let Sony know that their CZ135 is pointless..... and the Pentax A* 135mm F/1.8 was pointless. Must be why used copies sell for $2,000 when/if you can find one.

135mm is a good 200mm on APS-C which makes it more than just a special purpose lens. It has value to FF and APS-C shooters. It is a long way away from the DA 560mm when it comes to being a practical focal length.

[saladin]

wow, the reviews on this siggy seem to be off the charts everywhere! if it proves to be indicative of the other new lens lines that are coming, and they mount them in pentax, then we are massive winners as pentax users. and we suddenly have a source of outstanding, modern and available full frame lenses should a body be on it's way.....

[Winder]

wow, the reviews on this siggy seem to be off the charts everywhere! if it proves to be indicative of the other new lens lines that are coming, and they mount them in pentax, then we are massive winners as pentax users. and we suddenly have a source of outstanding, modern and available full frame lenses should a body be on it's way.....

Yeah... I have the 31mm LTD and I keep telling myself I'm not interested.... Then I read another review..... And I'm interested again... When we get a Pentax FF the real test will come when we can look at the 31mm on a FF body against the Sigma 35mm.

[saladin]

Yeah... I have the 31mm LTD and I keep telling myself I'm not interested.... Then I read another review..... And I'm interested again... When we get a Pentax FF the real test will come when we can look at the 31mm on a FF body against the Sigma 35mm.

I've been planning to get the 50mm 1.4, and hope to add either the 85 1.4 or the Fa77 at some point down the track. Now i'm wondering how i can possibly afford this new toy as well, lol. I'm trying to justify them on the basis that all are FF lenses, and so I'm future proofed .

The bank manager (she who wears the wedding band) is so far not being swayed by said reasoning Money is very tight right now, so about the best i can hope for is probably the DA35mm. Hmmm, 1st-world problems, hey. lol.

[vrrattko]

I have a Sigma 50mm which I bought after testing 2 DA*55mm lenses. Yes.... I would love for Pentax to make a F-DA* 50mm F/1.2. I had an 85L when I was still using Canon and loved it. Yes, DoF is very thin, and only practical for certain applications. Yes, I would buy one if it is sharp enough and has a fst accurate AF.

If you think the 135mm F/1.8 is to thin then you need to let Sony know that their CZ135 is pointless..... and the Pentax A* 135mm F/1.8 was pointless. Must be why used copies sell for $2,000 when/if you can find one.

135mm is a good 200mm on APS-C which makes it more than just a special purpose lens. It has value to FF and APS-C shooters. It is a long way away from the DA 560mm when it comes to being a practical focal length.

Lets not forget that Pentax A 135/1,8 was made in era of huge bright viewfinders, it would be quite an exercise to focus it properisly on apsc dslr, besides there arent many rave reviews on this lens. They try to sell it for 2000 USD because you cant find them, although I doubt anybody considers this reasonable money. Sony 135/1,8 is a nice lens but again, sony has fullframe.....there is no reason for such lens on aps-c, which is the case of Pentax. I think people from Pentax know who their customers are...
anyway Sigma is filling the gap for Pentax users providing fast great lenses like 85/1,4 50/1,4 and now 35/1,4....3 amigos from Sigma