Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-29-2016, 07:07 AM - 1 Like   #76
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,603
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
I don't think having a mount plate that is a couple mm larger is analogous with "poorly crafted". Sigma makes a lot of lenses that are larger and heavier than the average lens, so for all we know it could have been a conscious design decision that use a mount plate that was slightly beefier, to put less stress on the small flanges for lenses such as the 50-500mm. And since there had always been plenty of allowance around the mount in the past, even on the vast majority of the old film cameras, then why not?

And despite all the talk of official "published" specs, nobody so far has been able to provide proof of such a thing, so at this point I have to assume that those people are talking out of their you-know-whats.

If you want to complain about a company cutting corners on the mount plate to save a few cents, then lets look at which company has made a large number of lenses with plastic mounts. I've never owned a Sigma lens with a plastic mount, not even the budget lenses I have come across.
People are just looking for something to bitch about. Most of the people who own and use Sigma glass don't care about the very small mark. The people who seem to care the most are the ones who don't own or use Sigma glass. Ironic. When the 3rd party suppliers abandon K-mount they complain. When the 3rd party suppliers make products for K-mount they complain.

Sigma uses a thicker, and possible stronger mount than Pentax and people want something to complain about.

05-29-2016, 07:28 AM - 2 Likes   #77
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,783
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
People are just looking for something to bitch about.
Umbrage may be second only to p0rn for Internet usage.
05-29-2016, 07:38 AM - 1 Like   #78
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,596
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
Sigma still produces poor quality controlled mediocre lenses, that does include the "Art" thingies, which are no better than the older ones (only now they make the less brainy customers pay for repair tools for faulty Sigma lenses such as the USB dock).

Now it has turned out a whole bunch of them have even more been poorly designed (poor design quality comes to poor production quality ), even though it really is only a small Sigma error this time.

Now they try to control damage they have caused, which is the absolute minimum they need to do if they want to stay in the game. Sigma lenses damaging customers main gear is not a good sign.

Good for them, but nothing to really rave about, unless you are die hard Sigma fanboy (and there are enough of them around).

These quality issues are the very reason their lenses have to be priced -40% below OEM equipment and why even then nobody would buy it without a 50% extra warranty period.
Your rant about Sigma's alleged lack of quality control is pretty rich, considering that Pentax is the company whose top-of-the-line, bread-and-butter zoom lenses are almost guaranteed to fail not too long after the warranty expires. And what's more, Pentax lets their loyal customers take the hit, pretending like the rampant reliability problems do not exist.

And the cherry on top is how when you do send your SDM lens to a Pentax affiliate to be repaired, it can take weeks or months to get it back, often with very poor communication.

I guess some people are just gluttons for punishment.

This is all in stark contrast to how Sigma operates and takes care of their customers.

Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 05-29-2016 at 07:49 AM.
05-29-2016, 07:42 AM   #79
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,975
brand bashing

05-29-2016, 08:56 AM   #80
Senior Member
cafazucar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 152
Fanboys will be fanboys. Defending one company by attacking another doesn't make you look reasoned, it makes you look childish.

It has always been the responsibility of 3rd party manufacturers to stay up to date with new releases and ensure their products continue to function properly. Which is why Sigma is taking on the repair costs, so as to not alienate their Pentax-using base. Did Pentax designers take 3rd party lens manufacturing tolerances into account when designing the K-1 mount? It doesn't seem likely.. Should they have? Well, you know, that's just like your opinion man.
05-29-2016, 10:04 AM   #81
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,596
QuoteOriginally posted by cafazucar Quote
Fanboys will be fanboys. Defending one company by attacking another doesn't make you look reasoned, it makes you look childish.
Why are you calling names? I was pointing out the irony of his willful blindness when it comes to Pentax's own track record of quality and customer support. If anything I've said is un-reasoned, then feel free to point it out.
05-29-2016, 10:26 AM   #82
Senior Member
cafazucar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 152
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
Why are you calling names? I was pointing out the irony of his willful blindness when it comes to Pentax's own track record of quality and customer support. If anything I've said is un-reasoned, then feel free to point it out.
Attacking one company does not do anything to help defend another company's mistakes, it's a logical fallacy (false equivalency) and devolves the thread into a flame war. Also it wasn't only directed at you, but from the beginning of this thread you've been down-talking the Pentax brand, products, customer service, all on a Pentax forum. Nothing wrong with stating your opinion, but Sigma already stepped up and took responsibility for this one. Yet somehow this is still Pentax's fault? I don't think he's the one who is willfully blind

Last edited by cafazucar; 05-29-2016 at 06:50 PM.
05-29-2016, 10:47 AM   #83
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 242
there are a few possibilities, but the sigma lenses existed before the k-1, which leads me to believe:

pentax sends a pre-production body (or cad drawing or whatever) to sigma for testing, and sigma gives incorrect feedback somehow. could be as simple as "we have 1.0 mm clearance" instead of "we have .10 mm clearance" and the production is .3mm different the pre-production, and now you have scratches instead of a gap.

05-29-2016, 11:33 AM   #84
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,975
Pentax does not support Sigma so they don't consult them, or take Sigma into account when designing a camera.
05-29-2016, 01:49 PM   #85
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,813
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Do you not get that the difference never mattered until recently?
Why achieve any kind of precision, if it does not benefit anything, other than preventing an illogical argument to be made?
Do you not get that Sigma made lenses with a mount significantly larger than every Pentax K-mount, i.e. than the OEM products they were reverse engineering? They deliberately ignored a very obvious physical characteristic of the OEM products.
As for the "why", how could you even ask that? Because they risked their lenses not fitting future products, which is what happens with the K-1. Doh!
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
One can still buy this lens new, like a number of other Tamron lenses in K-mount.

So, no, you did not provide evidence for your claim that without rebadging we wouldn't be able to use Tamron lenses on our Pentax DSLRs.

Just in case you are talking about new Tamron designs like the 24-70/2.8, I doubt you can provide evidence that Tamron wouldn't have offered it (and similar ones) for K-mount after the introduction of the K-1.
I never claimed "that without rebadging we wouldn't be able to use Tamron lenses on our Pentax DSLRs", I would never make such silly claims. So naturally, I won't ever attempt to "produce evidence" to support it.
What I said instead is that Tamron last introduced a K-mount lens in 2008 - that's 8 years ago; there's no indication they would have introduced the 15-30 and the 24-70 in K-mount if it wasn't for the Pentax deal. So your claim that the Pentax deal makes things worse is dubious, unless you could prove that without it we'd have those lenses cheaper.
Yes, the burden of proof is yours.

---------- Post added 29-05-16 at 11:52 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
Your rant about Sigma's alleged lack of quality control is pretty rich, considering that Pentax is the company whose top-of-the-line, bread-and-butter zoom lenses are almost guaranteed to fail not too long after the warranty expires. And what's more, Pentax lets their loyal customers take the hit, pretending like the rampant reliability problems do not exist.
Pentax' top of the line zoom lenses are the D FA 70-200mm f/2.8 and D FA 150-450mm (as well as the Tamron rebadged 15-30mm f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8). I'm not aware of any of them being "almost guaranteed to fail".
05-29-2016, 02:10 PM - 2 Likes   #86
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,737
For those defending Sigma and saying Pentax deliberately or ignorantly messed up the clearance - ask yourself this. If the spec is xyz, but they allowed for much greater than that - an amount that happens to be about the exact amount plus a bit of the Sigma clearance - and the only lenses scratching the mount are those that seem to have a poorly machined eliptical rather than round part - how exactly was Pentax able to predict this?

It seems simple enough. Some reasonably sloppy machine work was done to make some mount spacers. These did not cause issues with past cameras and so Sigma let them slide because they did not detract from the usefulness or put off buyers. They never anticipated this change from Pentax and despite the fact that Pentax appears to have attempted to make allowances it seems like Pentax did not know about the eccentricity of the parts.

It doesn't take malice or failure - it just happens. Sigma did nothing wrong by accepting the eccentric parts since they caused no issues prior to this. Pentax wasn't trying to harm Sigma users and force them to Pentax products either. Kudos to Sigma for stepping up and offering a solution - there is nothing practical that Pentax could do in this situation other than perhaps make the repairs available to Sigma and perhaps cut them a break on price.

In any case - I have no idea why people take umbridge on this topic. Problem exists, sigma offers a fix, the end.
05-29-2016, 02:22 PM   #87
Pentaxian
Not a Number's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,072
Oh course. Sigma calls the shots. Ricoh has to dance to Sigma's tune. Sigma decides the flange register should be 1mm shorter or move the locking pin socket 3mm. Ricoh has to come up with a solution and redesign all their bodies and lenses to accommodate Sigma's new standard.
05-29-2016, 02:56 PM   #88
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,596
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
For those defending Sigma and saying Pentax deliberately or ignorantly messed up the clearance - ask yourself this
That was actually the theory floated by Monochrome, who is most definitely not a fan of Sigma. My theory is that it just happened, without any specific intent on either side.

QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
It seems simple enough. Some reasonably sloppy machine work was done to make some mount spacers.
Why assume that "sloppiness" was the cause? Sigma seems to actually make really nice lenses, so that does not seem like a fair assumption.

If you look at the list of effected lenses, they are all the larger/longer/heavier lenses, with the sole exception of for the 30mm. So I think it seems more likely that the mount plate was simply beefed up a bit to help distribute the weight/leverage of the larger and heavier lenses.
05-29-2016, 04:22 PM   #89
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,596
QuoteOriginally posted by Not a Number Quote
Oh course. Sigma calls the shots. Ricoh has to dance to Sigma's tune. Sigma decides the flange register should be 1mm shorter or move the locking pin socket 3mm. Ricoh has to come up with a solution and redesign all their bodies and lenses to accommodate Sigma's new standard.
Yeah, except that's not what happened. Which past Pentax cameras do the Sigma lenses not work on?

And besides that, it's not even a matter of the lens not working. It's a tiny, tiny scratch that many people probably would not have even noticed, had Sigma not decided to fix the "problem".
05-29-2016, 06:10 PM   #90
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,737
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
That was actually the theory floated by Monochrome, who is most definitely not a fan of Sigma. My theory is that it just happened, without any specific intent on either side.



Why assume that "sloppiness" was the cause? Sigma seems to actually make really nice lenses, so that does not seem like a fair assumption.

If you look at the list of effected lenses, they are all the larger/longer/heavier lenses, with the sole exception of for the 30mm. So I think it seems more likely that the mount plate was simply beefed up a bit to help distribute the weight/leverage of the larger and heavier lenses.
The coincidence seems unlikely.

The rings in question are eccentric not round and it affects only a portion of the impacted models of lenses. That seems to clearly indicate this isn't intentional.

I think you are just looking for shadows where none exist.
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!
apo, body, camera, cameras, claim, dg, f/2.8, fa, forum, hsm, k-1, k-mount, lens, lenses, mount, oem, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, post, products, repair, sigma, sigma ceo, tamron, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ability to use old K mount lenses on K1 is losing poll! barondla Pentax DSLR Discussion 49 03-31-2016 07:50 AM
K1 pics new update with da lenses this time zmohie Pentax News and Rumors 766 02-13-2016 04:49 PM
Sigma usb dock to suit sigma 'a', 's' & 'c' pentax mount lenses i_trax Pentax Price Watch 4 09-16-2014 03:50 PM
Adapter to use pentax lenses on nikon mount zmohie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 03-11-2013 01:42 PM
Wrong Identification of Lens when attached to K-5 stl09 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 02-29-2012 09:25 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:28 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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