Originally posted by monochrome
I said no such things, and you know it. Sigma can and should make what it makes and you can and should buy what you buy. I get it. I always have.
Your words are there for everyone to read, and you certainly do not sound appreciative that Sigma is operating in Pentax land.
Originally posted by monochrome
You brought up Tamron. we're not discussing Tamron. We're discussing Sigma. Please, don't assume I think everyone has to buy OEM lenses at a premium price.
Ha, if you take a look at my signature you will see that I'm the
last person who would make that assumption. I don't have anything against OEM lenses per se, as I have plenty of OEM Panasonic and Olympus lenses for my m43 kit, but in Pentax land I feel that Sigma meets my needs better in most cases.
Originally posted by monochrome
I said it is wrong to expect Pentax to violate its own published specifications
You keep citing these "published" specifications, so could you please post a link? The only thing I can find that dcshooter posted is this
very low-resolution scan of a scrap of something in Russian with a hand-drawn illustration of the mount that does not appear official at all.
If I had the choice between designing a lens based on that relic, or designing it based on actual Pentax DSLR's, I think I know which option would seem like a more reliable reference.
Originally posted by monochrome
to accommodate a poorly crafted third-party legacy (and apparently contemporary) list of lenses oversized spacer.
It's funny you bring up poor craftsmanship. That's actually one of the big reasons I've avoided Pentax lenses, and so far I'm happy to report that I've not had a single SDM failure!
Originally posted by monochrome
As far as use of 'parasite', please forgive my use of biology and anthropology in analogy. I did not intentional infer anything negative.
Oh no, of course not. How could I have ever made such a mistake?
Originally posted by monochrome
Regarding the gradual reduction of excess space around the mount - to flog the analogy - perhaps the host organism is gradually evolving to protect itself.
I'm still of the opinion that this is just something that happened without any specific mal-intent on anybody's part. But if your theory is correct, then I would be disappointed to see Pentax behaving that way since it is common knowledge that their catalog of available lenses is much thinner than that of Canon or Nikon.