Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-14-2015, 08:48 AM   #811
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,604
24-70 F2.8 I presume.

04-14-2015, 08:58 AM - 1 Like   #812
Site Supporter
kenspo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,878
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
24-70 F2.8 I presume.
Yes
04-14-2015, 09:01 AM   #813
Site Supporter
Rorschach's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kuusamo, Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 598
QuoteOriginally posted by gorme Quote
That's great news !!! I guess the 24-70mm f/2.8 from sigma (Macro or HSM version) was the only alternative in K mount for this range and aperture, even if Sigma seems to boycott the K mount nowadays (no 150-600mm and no 24mm f/1.4 Art....)
That's all right..I have boycotted Sigma ever since realizing that they are backward engineering their stuff and not paying royalties to the rightful companies. I sold the only Sigma product I had, a 1.4 TC and have never looked back. Screw them.
04-14-2015, 09:12 AM   #814
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Marietta, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,047
QuoteOriginally posted by Rorschach Quote
That's all right..I have boycotted Sigma ever since realizing that they are backward engineering their stuff and not paying royalties to the rightful companies. I sold the only Sigma product I had, a 1.4 TC and have never looked back. Screw them.
What lenses are they backward engineering?

I mean, how is that different from all the double gauss lenses out there? Isn't everybody copying Zeiss with their primes? And didn't Angenieux invent the retrofocus wide angle lens in 1950, and isn't every SLR wide angle lens now derived from that concept?

Or am I understanding it incorrectly and is Sigma actually infringing copyrighted designs?

04-14-2015, 09:18 AM   #815
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,406
They're reverse engineering the mount protocols, not the optical designs (and apparently that's legal)
04-14-2015, 09:20 AM   #816
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,716
QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
What lenses are they backward engineering?

I mean, how is that different from all the double gauss lenses out there? Isn't everybody copying Zeiss with their primes? And didn't Angenieux invent the retrofocus wide angle lens in 1950, and isn't every SLR wide angle lens now derived from that concept?

Or am I understanding it incorrectly and is Sigma actually infringing copyrighted designs?
The difference is, licensing pays for the mount and new development, backwards engineering pays your own engineering department, but not the creator of the mount. Reverse engineering is a way of avoiding copyright infringement. And in theory saving money by not contributing to the the developers of the mount.

Whether or not Sigma does this I don't know, but I suspect they do on everything. Why.. white dots aligning with red dots when mounting a lens, theres no reason to do this, except to avoid copyright restrictions. I have no idea how far this goes in the lens design etc.
04-14-2015, 09:35 AM - 2 Likes   #817
Site Supporter
Rorschach's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kuusamo, Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 598
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
They're reverse engineering the mount protocols, not the optical designs (and apparently that's legal)
I am not claiming that it is illegal it is just something that I will not support.

It is part of a larger thing actually: every time you buy something, you essentially cast a vote, support some approach, agenda, philosophy, business ethic etc.

I guess this sort of thinking comes naturally if one makes the active choice of trying to live supporting sustainability...we buy our house electricity from wind power companies even though it is more expensive than regular electricity, buy local and organic food items always when possible and so on...
04-14-2015, 09:41 AM   #818
Site Supporter
Stavri's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: at a Bean & Leaf
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,617
QuoteOriginally posted by Rorschach Quote
I am not claiming that it is illegal it is just something that I will not support.

It is part of a larger thing actually: every time you buy something, you essentially cast a vote, support some approach, agenda, philosophy, business ethic etc.

I guess this sort of thinking comes naturally if one makes the active choice of trying to live supporting sustainability...we buy our house electricity from wind power companies even though it is more expensive than regular electricity, buy local and organic food items always when possible and so on...
+1, Well said...

04-14-2015, 09:46 AM   #819
Site Supporter
Rorschach's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kuusamo, Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 598
QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
What lenses are they backward engineering?

I mean, how is that different from all the double gauss lenses out there? Isn't everybody copying Zeiss with their primes? And didn't Angenieux invent the retrofocus wide angle lens in 1950, and isn't every SLR wide angle lens now derived from that concept?

Or am I understanding it incorrectly and is Sigma actually infringing copyrighted designs?
I guess you got your answer in the messages above. Henri Cartier-Bresson is a favorite of mine too, by the way :-)
04-14-2015, 09:59 AM   #820
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,406
QuoteOriginally posted by Rorschach Quote
I am not claiming that it is illegal it is just something that I will not support.
I understood this, and IMO it's perfectly reasonable - you get the right to decide how to spend your money.
My comment was related to Christian Rock's "infringing copyrighted designs" - which if true would get a company sued. Perhaps "illegal" was not the best word.
04-14-2015, 11:39 AM   #821
Pentaxian
JimmyDranox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ploiesti, Romania
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,585
Every patent has an expire date. I don't know exactly, but if I remember well, was 20 years. So, I don't wonder that Sigma or Tamron don't pay licence fees for a mount that's older than this..
04-14-2015, 11:56 AM   #822
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,604
The mount is 40 years old but the AF protocol can be updated with every camera.
04-14-2015, 12:02 PM   #823
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Marietta, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,047
QuoteOriginally posted by JimmyDranox Quote
Every patent has an expire date. I don't know exactly, but if I remember well, was 20 years. So, I don't wonder that Sigma or Tamron don't pay licence fees for a mount that's older than this..
This might also explain why Canon especially, makes changes to the mount to stop older 3rd party lenses from working in their newer cameras...

And I'd have to read more about this issue of "supporting the mount" to see if it's something worthy of being concerned about. As far as I know, just the fact that they make lenses in a certain mount, is a form of support of that mount and that system, and might get people to buy cameras from the original manufacturer. But what do I know... I haven't researched this issue enough.
04-14-2015, 12:42 PM   #824
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,930
QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
This might also explain why Canon especially, makes changes to the mount to stop older 3rd party lenses from working in their newer cameras...

And I'd have to read more about this issue of "supporting the mount" to see if it's something worthy of being concerned about. As far as I know, just the fact that they make lenses in a certain mount, is a form of support of that mount and that system, and might get people to buy cameras from the original manufacturer. But what do I know... I haven't researched this issue enough.
I think it is a difference between Tamron and Sigma. Tamron actually pays a licensing fee to make certain that their lenses will work on a given mount, while Sigma just does their best to reverse engineer things. Sigma lenses still usually work decently, but not always.
04-14-2015, 12:43 PM   #825
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,413
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I understood this, and IMO it's perfectly reasonable - you get the right to decide how to spend your money.
My comment was related to Christian Rock's "infringing copyrighted designs" - which if true would get a company sued. Perhaps "illegal" was not the best word.
The reason there are 60+ different K-mount branded lenses is because there was no patent on it and like screw drive, SDM is a dumb technology which simply moves the AF elements forward or backwards. Might be as simple as reversing polarity. SDM uses the old Power Zoom contacts to power the AF motor. It was't designed from the ground up to have an in-lens AF motor like Canon. All the companies that evolved from screw drive had very simple AF systems and that maybe why they trailed Canon. Sigma didn't have near the trouble with the other mounts who evolved from screw drive (Nikon, Pentax, Sony) as they did with Canon or Olympus 4/3.


QuoteOriginally posted by Rorschach Quote
I guess this sort of thinking comes naturally if one makes the active choice of trying to live supporting sustainability...we buy our house electricity from wind power companies even though it is more expensive than regular electricity, buy local and organic food items always when possible and so on...
Does the company you buy power from pay a royalty to General Electric since GE was formed by Bush Electric (and others) and Bush Electric invented the wind turbine. There are no telling how many technologies that Ricoh/Pentax use that were designed by other companies. Everyone building a Sonnar, Planar, or Distagon lens is copying work done by Zeiss to some degree or another. Hoya/Pentax would be one of the companies that settled with Kodak over not paying to license technology that Kodak patented..... Along with everyone one else in the industry. There is no camera brand you can use that isn't reverse engineering technology. Even PDAF technology itself was reverse engineered by Japanese camera companies. Honeywell sued a dozen different camera makers over the AF technology with Minolta shelling out $120 million dollars and ultimately going under.

---------- Post added 04-14-15 at 02:48 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think it is a difference between Tamron and Sigma. Tamron actually pays a licensing fee to make certain that their lenses will work on a given mount, while Sigma just does their best to reverse engineer things. Sigma lenses still usually work decently, but not always.
Do you have a link on Tamron licensing AF technology from different manufacturers? Sony owns a large chunk of Tamron, so I'm sure there is a lot of sharing, but what about other brands?
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!
100mm, 70-200mm, couple, dfa, f/2.8, f2.8, fa, fa*80-200/2.8, front element, hd, hd pentax-d fa, holland, lens, lenses, macro, models, mounts, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, pentax-d, rings, shots, sigma, smc, sony, star, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax D-FA 100mm f2.8 Macro WR & DA* 200mm F2.8 ED [IF] SDM jurysi Sold Items 11 09-17-2012 05:27 PM
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM vs Pentax FA* 80-200mm F2.8? vectrln Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 07-27-2011 07:41 AM
★★NOW IN STOCK★★Pentax K-5 Limited Edition★★ Chuck-B&H Ask B&H Photo! 11 03-31-2011 05:29 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma APO EX 70-200mm/f2.8, Pentax FA 35mm/f2, Tamron 28-75mm/f2.8 chemxaj Sold Items 15 06-26-2008 06:58 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:05 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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