[Aristophanes]

It more than likely involved a group of them - R&D would have come up with the specifications and the engineers job was to make it a reality.



Software optical calculations can only do so much - have you ever wondered why Leica produce such outstanding lenses? their optical engineers are absolutely top rate, and as one of them told me when I visited the Leica in solms several years ago "software is only a tool, there is no substitute for experience and knowledge". That is why there are good optical engineers who made the FA31 and there are the engineers responsible for abomination that is the FA28-80mm f/3.5-4.7

Uh...you're just making my point.

Leica's engineers are such because they charge a fortune and get paid for stellar engineering. It's about resources and focus.

This is the same Leica who cannot manage to pair those lenses with a sensor equal to my K-30. And to be frank, I see just as much mundane photography with Leica glass (and some awful bokeh as well) as I do with any company of optical pedigree. One can make a solid argument that Leica is over-engineered with much of that waste not seen in the final photo. While Leica may have once been a hallmark for journalism, that market is mostly dead for them now and truly great photos are being brought out with fantastic glass from many companies, including Pentax (and Sony...gasp! RX-1). Leica's stuff is incredibly durable, that's for sure.

Pentax made crap lenses for a crap market segment where everyone was trolling on prices. Great engineers can make lousy products that pay the bills. It has nothing to do with talent and it's why you sometimes see great actors in awful films. Lots of experience but they went where the money was.

And when anyone says that software cannot take their job....you know the end is coming...for their job. I suspect that design of such lenses is getting easier but the real resource hog is engineering the final production and assembly, not the optical formulas. I think Sigma is focused on exploiting a niche...with drawbacks. I keep getting back to a 900g lens on APS-C and the issues with handholding. Good thing Pentax has SR.

[jsherman999]

...Perhaps in the building code domain it is more so than not. But in software or product design. including optics design I suspect, as examples, some engineers can do what others are not capable of, regardless of what budget you give them. ....

This is especially true in software design. You find engineers who can have literally 10x the talent of the folks one or two rungs down, and the folks two rungs down aren't necessarily non-productive idiots.

No idea if the same situation occurs in optical design. I actually wish I knew more about the field, and I really wish we had optical engineers and actual lens designers - folks who designed the lenses we use - visit this forum.

.

[Aristophanes]

Stealing a page from my songbook?

Yes. But FF is still too expensive for Pentax. Sigma is exploiting the fact that of the discretionary $'s out there, those not willing to fork over for the D600 may be willing to buy a monster size, short FL zoom from a non-OEM company instead.

That's because the DA40 is smaller than the Canon pancake.. which isn't so much a pancake as it is a biscuit. The k-30 is barely larger than my k-x. I've seen them next to each other. And the k-x is practically the same size as the SL1.

I have both a K-x and K-30. Earlier I said the K-30/50/500 is a bit of a design step back from the K-x because it sacrifices a size advantage to other players, like Canon:

Compare camera dimensions side by side

Note the 60% difference in mass.

I think the APS-C DSLR market is going to fragment into the sub-pro market such as a merger between the K-50 and K-5...mostly the latter at lower price points. the market for $1,500 cameras is turning into the used FF sector. Good luck selling a flagship APS-C for that price anymore.

And the next market segment for APS-C is going to have to be both a challenger to mirrorless and an appeal to soccer moms, and that's a market looking more and more forged by size of camera and system combined. Pentax has played here before and have the lenses to do so in a comprehensive package.

People will not buy a single DSLR to do many things,. They'll buy a rugged outdoor macho unit for their WR zooms and they'll also get the tuck-in-the-bag compact version with a DA 35/2.4 for light weight. I think Pentax missed a golden opportunity with the K-500 in making this their bad little boy; a smaller than the K-x. I'd even settle for a smaller screen at fantastic resolution, less battery life (buy another; that's why they are interchangeable), better video, crammed into as small a space as feasible. I'd give up the steel chassis even. Heck, I'd even settle for no built-in flash and custom little unit on the hotshot that draws off the main battery. I like the idea of the little OM-D grip, too. Just get the form factor down so the consumer has a great DSLR option to mirrorless and the Limited don't look so....silly.

The Sigma will sell to the former most likely.

[JinDesu]

I would point out that the k-30 doesn't compete with the SL1. I really don't think you can put a solid frame with weathersealing into a dslr and expect it to compete with plastic fantastic SL1. The k-x was also much heavier than the SL1, at 41% heavier. That being said, I much prefer the heft of my k-x over the "cheap" feeling of the Rebel series.

Why not compare the k-30/k-50/k-500 to the T5i? You'll see it is much more comparable, and the k-30 is actually smaller. Also, your original statement was: "the K-30 looks a bit silly with a DA40 and barely non-comical with a DA21. I saw an SL1 with a Canon pancake and it looked...normal"

I was trying to say that your ideal of "normal" comes from the SL1 being slightly smaller than the k-30, while the Canon pancake being slightly larger than the DA40. If the DA40 was as large as the Canon pancake, it would look pretty normal on the k-30 also. On the other hand, it wouldn't be a proper pancake then.

Certainly, until Pentax brings out a tiny entry level, there is nothing to compare to the SL1. But that doesn't make it accurate to compare the k-30 to it.

[TimKierath]

I keep getting back to a 900g lens on APS-C and the issues with handholding. Good thing Pentax has SR.

Ever used the DA* 50-135mm? the Sigma 18-35 looks to be very similar dimensions, sure a little heavier but it's a way shorter focal length - and if you've ever used the 50-135, you'll know it handles beautifully. I don't think that's going to be a big issue, especially for someone wanting a lens of this quality/price.

[Aristophanes]

I would point out that the k-30 doesn't compete with the SL1. I really don't think you can put a solid frame with weathersealing into a dslr and expect it to compete with plastic fantastic SL1. The k-x was also much heavier than the SL1, at 41% heavier. That being said, I much prefer the heft of my k-x over the "cheap" feeling of the Rebel series.

Why not compare the k-30/k-50/k-500 to the T5i? You'll see it is much more comparable, and the k-30 is actually smaller. Also, your original statement was: "the K-30 looks a bit silly with a DA40 and barely non-comical with a DA21. I saw an SL1 with a Canon pancake and it looked...normal"

I was trying to say that your ideal of "normal" comes from the SL1 being slightly smaller than the k-30, while the Canon pancake being slightly larger than the DA40. If the DA40 was as large as the Canon pancake, it would look pretty normal on the k-30 also. On the other hand, it wouldn't be a proper pancake then.

Certainly, until Pentax brings out a tiny entry level, there is nothing to compare to the SL1. But that doesn't make it accurate to compare the k-30 to it.

I'm comparing the SL1 to the K-30/50/500 because of the threat of compact size presented by mirrorless. And based on the fact that the K-01 was mirrroless and partially addressed the size conundrum. Canon's going small, but the very good seller K-x (look at Flickr stats) has been replaced by the lesser sales of the K-r/30. I attribute the great sales of the K-x as much to its excellent sensor as to its size. Since then size has gone up and it looks like equivalent model sales have not. Hmmmm....

It looks to me like part of the market really likes smaller DSLR's. Canon's looking into it, but their small lenses are not so small. Advantage Pentax...if they can milk it. I'm not sure that a diminutive DSLR needs to be entry-level, BTW. That's Canon's take, not Sony's.

My DA 40 looks good on my *ist. And the *ist has no "heft" whatsoever. Some heft may not be necessary and less may sell more. The Sigma is all heft.

[JinDesu]

Again, until Pentax releases their smaller cheaper cam, I understand that it's not their best position right now. On the other hand, the k-30 is to compete with the D5100 and the T5i. It fits in that lineup.

And the *ist D is basically the same size as the k-x, if just a bit thinner.

[Class A]

The whole "talent pool" is limited argument is so....10 years ago.

What has happened in the last 10 years to invalidate the argument?

Standard results can be achieved by regular engineers using standard engineering methods.

Top results in any field, such as high end audio, formula one racing, exceptional optics, etc. are a completely different animal. They are typically created by individual geniuses whose methods blur the boundaries between engineering, science, and art. Committee work is usually not of exceptional standard.

If you do not understand that there is no mechanical way to arrive at the top results in any field then you don't understand the brilliance of these achievements.

[EarlVonTapia]

Ever used the DA* 50-135mm? the Sigma 18-35 looks to be very similar dimensions, sure a little heavier but it's a way shorter focal length - and if you've ever used the 50-135, you'll know it handles beautifully. I don't think that's going to be a big issue, especially for someone wanting a lens of this quality/price.

Funny enough, I am going traveling this fall, and I will NOT be bringing my DA* 50-135 because it's simply too big and heavy and clunky. Handles nice? I guess. It's certainly a great lens. Just a little too big to be walking around with it, either in hand or in the bag.

The Sigma 18-35 looks like an astounding lens. I do want that quality, and I do want that sweet f1.8 in that zoom range. It's just too bad that the lens is so big and heavy. As I stated (way) earlier this thread, I think it will find a great application in a more defined and controlled setting (wedding, concert, convention, studio, etc.). As a general walkaround for travel or generic family and friend snapshots? No thanks.

[dankoBanana]

The Sigma 18-35 looks like an astounding lens. I do want that quality, and I do want that sweet f1.8 in that zoom range. It's just too bad that the lens is so big and heavy. As I stated (way) earlier this thread, I think it will find a great application in a more defined and controlled setting (wedding, concert, convention, studio, etc.). As a general walkaround for travel or generic family and friend snapshots? No thanks.

I have to disagree and say that for me, this seems like a perfect walkaround lens for travel. Let me clarify why. I travel a lot with my girlfriend and I usually take a K5, DA* 16-50, Limited 40 & 70 + a tele zoom (Sigma AF 75-200 f3.8 is my new love). I pull out the limiteds only when I'm going indoors and dont want to scare anyone with a big lens but for everything else I use the 16-50. Now, what I've found is that I rarely use the 50mm and I often lack speed. One example would be Prague at night. A full stop and a half of difference between the 16-50 and the sigma 18-35 would is a LOT in that situation. When you pair it with SR its the difference between ISO 6400 and ISO 1600. Especially if the statement from Falconeye is valid (that the sigma is actually a f1.5 in terms of light gathering). And the difference in size and heft between the 16-50 and the 18-35 is not important because no combo is pocketable and I would end up using the same bag. That is why I am very excited about this lens

[EarlVonTapia]

I have to disagree and say that for me, this seems like a perfect walkaround lens for travel. Let me clarify why. I travel a lot with my girlfriend and I usually take a K5, DA* 16-50, Limited 40 & 70 + a tele zoom (Sigma AF 75-200 f3.8 is my new love). I pull out the limiteds only when I'm going indoors and dont want to scare anyone with a big lens but for everything else I use the 16-50. Now, what I've found is that I rarely use the 50mm and I often lack speed. One example would be Prague at night. A full stop and a half of difference between the 16-50 and the sigma 18-35 would is a LOT in that situation. When you pair it with SR its the difference between ISO 6400 and ISO 1600. Especially if the statement from Falconeye is valid (that the sigma is actually a f1.5 in terms of light gathering). And the difference in size and heft between the 16-50 and the 18-35 is not important because no combo is pocketable and I would end up using the same bag. That is why I am very excited about this lens

See, I'm planning on traveling with a Sigma 10-20 and a Tamron 17-50. The Tamron is going to be the walkaround, and the Sigma is for land/cityscapes and architecture. What I've found with the Tamron is that I often shoot at the extremes, 17mm and 50mm, and in fact sometimes clamor for just a little more reach. If only someone made an 18-70mm f2.8 (constant)! In fact, I would consider getting the new Sigma 17-70 for my purposes before I go after the 18-35.

I'm also just going to bring a backpack and a shoulder bag. No checking in bags for me. As such I want to limit as much things to carry, and the Sigma 18-35 is bigger and heavier than the Tamron. The size/weight difference is smaller between the 16-50 and the Sigma 18-35, but it's still there. Plus, a bigger lens can attract some negative attention while travelling.

So in the end, different strokes for different folks. If the Sigma excites you, by all means go for it. But not everyone shares your enthusiasm for it.

[dankoBanana]

So in the end, different strokes for different folks. If the Sigma excites you, by all means go for it. But not everyone shares your enthusiasm for it.

I agree I am telling myself I'll buy the 18-35 as an experiment. If I don't like it, I'm sure I'll be able to sell it with little money to loose.

[Digitalis]

Many people here are commenting about the weight of this sigma lens - I mean, really? did you expect an 18-35mm f/1.8 lens to be a featherweight?

The Canon/Nikon 24-70 mm lenses are bricks and as it happens so is the sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 ASPH is also a brick. WHY is this surprising so many people?

[Aristophanes]

Many people here are commenting about the weight of this sigma lens - I mean, really? did you expect an 18-35mm f/1.8 lens to be a featherweight?

The Canon/Nikon 24-70 mm lenses are bricks and as it happens so is the sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 ASPH is also a brick. WHY is this surprising so many people?

Because it's a design going in the opposite direction of the market relative to sensor size.

Look at the ads from this thread:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/231514-ricohs-creative...ml#post2452469

...and tell me how many of those women—the target audience for those cameras—are going to heft this thing around?

For all its optical achievements the Sigma 18-35 gets there by eliminating huge chunks of the market. No OEM would dare manufacture an APS-C body around this glass; it would kill sales based on size alone. Very few people will treat such a large, heavy lens as a daily walkaround. That''s not where the vast majority of the APS-C market is headed.

I'm all for a healthy, fractured market with tons of consumer options. What I see with Pentax is their body size has crept up since the the K-x and their run of Limiteds. Using Flickr stats the popularity has actually stalled or decreased since the cameras have gotten larger.

This trend (and the Sigma) are NOT how DSLR's compete with mirrorless. Pentax will both need small bodies (and not entry-level) and more robust WR bodies for the big glass, side by side in the market, sort of like what Canon is doing. I think Nikon noticed the same thing since the D40/60 which then got larger and now they are starting to shrink the form factor.

This is for APS-C. It's becoming increasingly apparent that big glass will be the turf of FF. As I said, the Sigma is swimming upstream where APS-C camera bodies are going to need to swim downstream.

[Digitalis]

NOT how DSLR's compete with mirrorless

DSLR cameras simply cannot compete with mirrorless - especially when size is concerned. So why bother?

It's becoming increasingly apparent that big glass will be the turf of FF.

Big glass designed for FF sensors typically has to be made much larger to project an image onto the larger sensor, though in this case the Sigma lens weighs about 90g less than the Nikkor 24-70G ED, and only 5 grams more than the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II