[Edgar_in_Indy]

The fact is, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I think it's interesting that the only thing Pentax critics can get lathered up about so far is a tiny scratch made by a non-compliant third-party lens.

By calling Sigma a "parasite" you certainly don't come off as an impartial observer who simply finds the situation "interesting". It's ironic that the only person using derogatory terms is the one accusing others of being "lathered up".

[rawr]

NB: Metz is also like Sigma. They reverse engineer.
I've successfully shot many thousands of shots with Metz on K-1/ K-3/ K-5 now. So these 'parasites' are not confined to lenses.

Let's hope that in future Pentax doesn't do something to obstruct 3rd party flashes from mounting on Pentax bodies like they seem to have done recently with the K-1 and Sigma lenses (although the K-3 II already did a bit of that in terms of blocking Yongnuo and other flashes from mounting on the K-3 II hotshoe).

[Edgar_in_Indy]

NB: Metz is also like Sigma. They reverse engineer.

What are the alternatives to reverse-engineering? Does Pentax make the specs, algorithms, code, etc. freely available to 3rd parties at a certain price? At any price? Or do they only allow that for re-branded items that magically cost more and have much less warranty when the "Pentax" name is attached?

[mee]

By calling Sigma a "parasite" you certainly don't come off as an impartial observer who simply finds the situation "interesting". It's ironic that the only person using derogatory terms is the one accusing others of being "lathered up".

The issue here isn't that. It is an issue of viewing the relationship from the point of view of a consumer/photographer versus a company offering the products.

This isn't Fight Club -- You aren't your K-30 nor are you your Sigma lenses. So why get so upset over it?

[Edgar_in_Indy]

The issue here isn't that. It is an issue of viewing the relationship from the point of view of a consumer/photographer versus a company offering the products.

Thank you! That's exactly my point! I am the one viewing it from the consumer's perspective. I'm just sticking up (ie providing an alternate viewpoint) for a brand that I think provides some good options to Pentax users, and that I have been very satisfied with.

This isn't Fight Club -- You aren't your K-30 nor are you your Sigma lenses. So why get so upset over it?

Upset? You should ask Monochrome why he's upset about Sigma offering lenses in K-mount. You would think that he works for Pentax's lens division and that his livelihood is threatened by Sigma offering competing products since he's calling Sigma a "parasite" and an "opportunist". (As if all for-profit companies are not "opportunists". Monochrome may as well grind his teeth and call Pentax an opportunist for intruding onto the FF landscape to try to steal customers from Canon and Nikon with the K-1, ha!)

[rawr]

...viewing it from the consumer's perspective.

To always be remembered.

Sometimes even Pentax needs a little reminder of this.

Designers, think of users.

[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.

You brought up rebranding. We're not discussing rebranding. That's a symbiosis. We're discussing Sigma. Please, don't assume I think everyone has to buy OEM lenses at a premium price. It is the responsibility of Sigma to make its lenses work with Pentax, not the other way around, though. And they're doing that, so what's the issue?

I said it is wrong to expect Pentax to violate its own published specifications to accommodate a poorly crafted third-party legacy (and apparently contemporary) list of lenses' oversized spacer. All Sigma needs to do is loosely conform to the specification, which they will do, for free, for legacy and contemporary lenses. Good for them.

As far as use of 'parasite', please forgive my use of biology and anthropology in analogy. I did not intentionally infer anything negative.

Regarding the gradual reduction of excess space around the mount (it actually varies in both directions over time) - to flog the analogy - perhaps the host organism is gradually evolving to protect itself.

Pentax does not, I don't believe, publish it's flash protocol, like they do the K-mount spec. Do Metz users seriously hold Pentax accountable for not telling Metz in advance, "OBTW, we altered the protocol for FF Mode and 1/200 sync. Here's the new algorithm."?

[stevebrot]

I may do some photos of one of my Sigma lenses that are on the 'problem list' (but which actually pose no problem on my K-1 - phew!) with different generations of my Pentaxes, from MX to Ricoh XR2S to K-x/K-5/K-3/K-1, to illustrate how Pentax has progressively 'moved the goalposts' in terms of the shrinking area above the K mount ring up to the K-1.

Interesting project

I don't have any of the Sigma lenses on the "bad" list, but I do have a small selection of K-mount bodies. I just mounted my fairly fat current model Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (C) on the quite compact, mid-80s vintage Super Program and was surprised to see a scant 1mm clearance of the "shiny ring" to the base of the prism housing. The K-3 provides 2.5mm at its tightest squeeze point with the same lens, which is about the same as with my second smallest body, Ricoh XR7.


Steve

[Edgar_in_Indy]

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

[Gray]

Yes, Sigma lenses are a really great addition to the K-mount Pentax system. The K-mount would be poorer for the lack of Sigma lenses.

Sigma is behaving much, much better with this rather minor problem than Pentax ever did with the SDM fiasco. Bravo Sigma! - not only did you acknowledge and own the problem, you've offered to fix the problem with the least amount of inconvenience to your customers.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Interesting project

I don't have any of the Sigma lenses on the "bad" list, but I do have a small selection of K-mount bodies. I just mounted my fairly fat current model Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (C) on the quite compact, mid-80s vintage Super Program and was surprised to see a scant 1mm clearance of the "shiny ring" to the base of the prism housing. The K-3 provides 2.5mm at its tightest squeeze point with the same lens, which is about the same as with my second smallest body, Ricoh XR7.

I have two lenses on the list, the 85mm and the 50-150mm, and I just put them on a K1000 with no problem, but that should be no surprise since there is no overhang/protrusion whatsoever around the mount on the K1000. But I also have an old Pentax SF1 from the late 80's, which does have an overhang above the mount, but even on that there is still plenty of extra room around the mount with either lens attached.

[Kunzite]

I have the impression you're a Sigma user, a "Sigmatian" (or whatever), and the Pentax is the 3rd-party for you, the maker of the cameras which happens to be compatible with your lenses. So you've got the OEM and the 3rd-party switched.
Here's the best specification Sigma could find, did find, and chose to ignore: the Pentax K-mount lenses. It was a conscious decision from their part, probably saving a few $ on production costs; so I really don't get why you're pointing fingers at Pentax.

[bxf]

Oh, for heavens' sake! Yes, it is desirable for Pentax users to have access to SIgma lenses. Yes, it may be a selling point to have a greater choice of lenses available for Pentax bodies. Yes... yes... yes...

BUT, if SIgma offers products that it markets as being compatible, then it must ensure compatibility. If something does not fit, then obviously it is out of spec, unless it can be shown that the actual spec, not its implementation, has changed. If company XXX markets a fuel pump that is a replacement for the one used in the yyyy Buick Riviera, then it must fit that car. If GM makes a change to their version of the fuel pump, but the new cars still accept the previous version (as well as the new one), then the XXX version must also fit. If it doesn't, then it was not 100% compatible.

[D1N0]

I have two lenses on the list, the 85mm and the 50-150mm, and I just put them on a K1000 with no problem, but that should be no surprise since there is no overhang/protrusion whatsoever around the mount on the K1000. But I also have an old Pentax SF1 from the late 80's, which does have an overhang above the mount, but even on that there is still plenty of extra room around the mount with either lens attached.

It doesn't really matter on which bodies the Sigma's fit, but on which they don't fit. The K-1. It's overhang starts immediately from the top of the mount ring. Therefore it is critictal how large the mount ring on the lens is. Results from the past are no guarantee for future compatibility. Unless you remain in specification because Pentax isn't going the cripple Pentax lenses (unless k+m lenses, but there is a workaround for that )

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Here's the best specification Sigma could find, did find, and chose to ignore: the Pentax K-mount lenses. It was a conscious decision from their part, probably saving a few $ on production costs; so I really don't get why you're pointing fingers at Pentax.

Excuse me, but I'm among the people here not pointing fingers at anybody. I already said I don't think the clearance issue was intentional. Please be more careful next time before you start pointing fingers.

I have the impression you're a Sigma user, a "Sigmatian" (or whatever), and the Pentax is the 3rd-party for you, the maker of the cameras which happens to be compatible with your lenses. So you've got the OEM and the 3rd-party switched.

And I've got the impression that you don't know much about me. I owned and exclusively used Pentax lenses long before I bought any Sigma lenses. In fact, my first non-Pentax lens was the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. It fit my shooting style, which featured a lot of people pictures and portraits, and Pentax was not offering an equivalent lens at the time.

I had a very positive experience with the Tamron, so when my needs expanded, I wasn't afraid to look at 3rd party lenses. And I'm very glad I did. Not only was I able to avoid the SDM problems, but I also got to use some really great and unique glass. Each and every lens I owned was purchased because I like what it offered, not because of the brand name. And for what it's worth, my next lens purchase may very well be a Pentax...I've had my eye on the 10-17mm fisheye for quite a while now.

But let's test out your theory that I buy Sigma lenses simply because I'm a "Sigmatian". Why don't you (or anyone else) take a look at my signature and tell me which specific lenses I would be better off replacing with a specific Pentax lens? I'm listening, and I'm open to being persuaded if there is something I've missed.