[Kunzite]

Talking doesn't accomplish much, if anything. What does the trick is us buying existing products - this, not talking, would push the manufacturers to release more. The Sigma Art lenses we're not getting? That's because we didn't buy enough of what they made in K-mount (I'm not assigning blame, just stating a fact).
When the new D FA* primes will arrive, I hope people will buy them instead of complaining about the price.

[mee]

That's a catch-22.

I'm not buying the lenses I don't want just to get the lenses I do want. That's ludicrous if they think that!

For FF, Sigma offers a pair of low rent 70-300s, a Bigma, a 300 f/2.8, and a 35 f/1.4 art. If they expect us to buy those to get an 85 f/1.4, 24-105 f/4, 100-400 or 150-600 lens then they are just making up excuses as to why they are not offering more products in K mount.

That is like BMW saying if you don't buy our 1-series coupe we won't offer a 5 series sedan or X SUV in your market. But I'm not in the market for a coupe, so why would I buy a coupe?

[Rondec]

Talking doesn't accomplish much, if anything. What does the trick is us buying existing products - this, not talking, would push the manufacturers to release more. The Sigma Art lenses we're not getting? That's because we didn't buy enough of what they made in K-mount (I'm not assigning blame, just stating a fact).
When the new D FA* primes will arrive, I hope people will buy them instead of complaining about the price.

Well, I for one have purchased all of the DFA f2.8 zooms, the FA 31, FA77, DA *55, DA *16-50, DA *50-135, and a bunch of other lenses over time. I can't say I buy many of the consumer lenses or really long lenses and I don't own any Sigma lenses. Odds are that if I see nice photos from the DFA * primes I will want them and will save up to get them. My biggest complaint is that Pentax hasn't released anything really recently that I had a big desire to buy (since the DFA 15-30 which wasn't their design).

As they say, LBA is a tough disease to deal with.

[normhead]

Well, I for one have purchased all of the DFA f2.8 zooms, the FA 31, FA77, DA *55, DA *16-50, DA *50-135, and a bunch of other lenses over time. I can't say I buy many of the consumer lenses or really long lenses and I don't own any Sigma lenses. Odds are that if I see nice photos from the DFA * primes I will want them and will save up to get them. My biggest complaint is that Pentax hasn't released anything really recently that I had a big desire to buy (since the DFA 15-30 which wasn't their design).

As they say, LBA is a tough disease to deal with.

Hell, I don't even want most of those lenses.
OK , maybe the 31 and 77.

the FA 31's corners aren't the best at f1.8

Sigma 35- art


Nikon Fans 1.8G


Nikon 35mm 1.4 G


canon EF 35 ƒ1.4 USM -L


31 ltd.


Maybe you could post an example of a chart of rthis lens that's as good wide open as it is stopped down, or that' has excellent edge sharpness wide open.

---

Last edited by normhead; 09-16-2017 at 07:19 AM.

[Rondec]

Hell, I don't even want most of those lenses.
OK , maybe the 31 and 77.

What can I say? They're nice lenses.

I have never regretted a lens purchase. First of all, if you don't like it you can always sell it without too much loss (assuming it's a decent lens and you didn't drop it off a bridge). Second, once you have lenses you can keep using them as long as you want. As a factor of number of cents per photograph taken, glass is an awfully good value, even very expensive glass.

[normhead]

Check out the next part of the question...

One of the biggest things I see when people are criticizing lenses, is the criticism of lenses for attributes that seem to be common to that class of lens regardless of manufacturer.

The 31 isn't at it's sharpest wide open, so who's is? How do we know that's even optically possible?

Falconeye once suggested that the absolute best quality lenses were sharpest at ƒ2.8 and gave a long detailed technical explanation of why that is true. So, I'm suggesting what you are suggesting is technically impossible. If I understood the proof, i'd recite it.

This may be a case where what you are asking for would not be an indication of technical excellence.

Given that I actually have taken a class in lens design, there are only a few people on the forum I will actually listen to about stuff like this. I know just enough to be able to tell when someone knows what they are talking about, even if I can't express those things myself. Most people are just making stuff up.

In most cases if lens isn't made a certain way, it's because it can't be, or it would be too expensive to make it better. Most criticisms of those designs are made by people who don't understand the design constraints and other considerations.

[Kunzite]

That's a catch-22.

I'm not buying the lenses I don't want just to get the lenses I do want. That's ludicrous if they think that!

For FF, Sigma offers a pair of low rent 70-300s, a Bigma, a 300 f/2.8, and a 35 f/1.4 art. If they expect us to buy those to get an 85 f/1.4, 24-105 f/4, 100-400 or 150-600 lens then they are just making up excuses as to why they are not offering more products in K mount.

This is not exactly how it works - but, if the demand for the 35 f/1.4 Art is "low", if it's sitting on shelves everywhere instead of selling - they might be reluctant in releasing other Art lenses. Wait, they actually are
An OEM, of course, is more willing to support their own mount.

[Rondec]

Check out the next part of the question...

One of the biggest things I see when people are criticizing lenses, is the criticism of lenses for attributes that seem to be common to that class of lens regardless of manufacturer.

The 31 isn't at it's sharpest wide open, so who's is? How do we know that's even optically possible?

Falconeye once suggested that the absolute best quality lenses were sharpest at ƒ2.8 and gave a long detailed technical explanation of why that is true. So, I'm suggesting what you are suggesting is technically impossible. If I understood the proof, i'd recite it.

This may be a case where what you are asking for would not be an indication of technical excellence.

Given that I actually have taken a class in lens design, there are only a few people on the forum I will actually listen to about stuff like this. I know just enough to be able to tell when someone knows what they are talking about, even if I can't express those things myself. Most people are just making stuff up.

In most cases if lens isn't made a certain way, it's because it can't be, or it would be too expensive to make it better. Most criticisms of those designs are made by people who don't understand the design constraints and other considerations.

Well, what's the point? If Pentax can't make lenses better than the FA 77 and FA 31, then they are up a creek without a paddle. But I think it is clear that they can do a little better and those, good as they are, aren't the pinnacle of lens design.

[normhead]

Well, what's the point? If Pentax can't make lenses better than the FA 77 and FA 31, then they are up a creek without a paddle. But I think it is clear that they can do a little better and those, good as they are, aren't the pinnacle of lens design.

I post the information relevant to my thinking, lens charts, expert opinions, and that's what you offer? I'd hoped you could do better.

I always hope people think differently than I do because they know more than I do. Sometimes it's just they are more opinionated, although I find it hard to imagine being more opinionated than me. Is that even possible?

OK, I have to ask, where is this lens better than the 31 ltd. that Pentax should be looking to match or exceed?

[mee]

This is not exactly how it works - but, if the demand for the 35 f/1.4 Art is "low", if it's sitting on shelves everywhere instead of selling - they might be reluctant in releasing other Art lenses. Wait, they actually are
An OEM, of course, is more willing to support their own mount.

How exactly does it work?

[Kunzite]

Well, I for one have purchased all of the DFA f2.8 zooms, the FA 31, FA77, DA *55, DA *16-50, DA *50-135, and a bunch of other lenses over time. I can't say I buy many of the consumer lenses or really long lenses and I don't own any Sigma lenses. Odds are that if I see nice photos from the DFA * primes I will want them and will save up to get them. My biggest complaint is that Pentax hasn't released anything really recently that I had a big desire to buy (since the DFA 15-30 which wasn't their design).

As they say, LBA is a tough disease to deal with.

That's how Pentax stays alive

I'm seeing several compelling lenses on the roadmap. Perhaps the situation will turn into a "I can't afford to buy all that I want".

[normhead]

How exactly does it work?

They make lenses for Pentax and they sell or they don't. If they sell fast enough, and fast enough is a thing because companies hate to store unsold inventory, they make more Pentax lenses. If they don't sell fast enough they don't make more Pentax lenses. If we right now buy up every Pentax lens out there left in Sigma's inventory, Sigma could still judge Pentax mount unworkable, because of the amount of time it took to sell them and of how much of their expected profit was eaten up by the cost of keeping those lenses in inventory.

SO Sigma (like Tamron) has to decide, should we make 500 lenses for Pentax mount that take 5 years to sell, or should we make another 500 lenses in Nikon mount, that require no further R&D and will be gone next year?
Which do you suppose makes them more money?

I assume the Sigma dropping Pentax was not only based on low Pentax sales, but on the likely hood of ever making a profit on Pentax K-mount lenses. Companies will gamble from time to time, but they like the odds to be in their favour.

And by the way, I have two really good Sigma lenses, the 8-16 and 70macro and my original digital purchase was a Sigma 70-300...and later I bought a Sigma 18-250. I've done my part. Sigma definitely didn't drop Pentax because of me. I miss Sigma, but it's not life threatening.

IN the end, I prefer the size and weight of the DFA 100 macro to the Sigma 70, the 8-16 isn't full frame which I use for most of my UWA these days, and the 70-300 and 18-250 just didn't turn out to be high enough IQ. In the end, Sigma was great stop gap gear, but none of it is still in use.

Not having Sigma in K mount will keep me from buying lenses like the 70-300 and 18-250 and Sigma 70 macro. They are good for what they are, but they weren't what I ultimately wanted, and in some cases I would have been much better served going to better gear right from the get go, but got lulled into thinking "it might work for me" by the lower price.

[Kunzite]

How exactly does it work?

As described in the post you were quoting - and as explained by normhead.
In Sigma's case, the decision I'm afraid is made by accountants. In Ricoh Imaging's case, there's a good part of company politics and mid/long term planning (which works to our favor, I'd say).

[Winder]

Well, what's the point? If Pentax can't make lenses better than the FA 77 and FA 31, then they are up a creek without a paddle. But I think it is clear that they can do a little better and those, good as they are, aren't the pinnacle of lens design.

I'm sure Ricoh can do a lot better. I own the 31mm LTD and its one of my favorite lenses, but it definitely could be improved. Internal coatings and CA can both be improved if nothing else. As much as I like the small size of the 31mm I question the accuracy of screw drive on high resolution sensors. The focus consistency doesn't seem to be as good as it is with modern lenses like the D-FA* 70-200mm. Newer AF motors seem to be more consistent for getting critical focus.

I think the 77mm has a lot of room for improvement. If I was just shooting B&W then I would probably love that lens, but the CA is an issue. It also has a nice size advantage over modern lenses and in low contrast lighting it produces excellent results.

I'm hoping we see a D-FA* 35mm lens in the very near future. I would also like to see a new version of the 28mm "Hollywood".

[mee]

As described in the post you were quoting - and as explained by normhead.
In Sigma's case, the decision I'm afraid is made by accountants. In Ricoh Imaging's case, there's a good part of company politics and mid/long term planning (which works to our favor, I'd say).

But you said 'this is not exactly' how it works. Now you are telling me, in that post that you said 'this is not exactly how it works' that it is exactly how it works. /facepalm

Besides, you're changing your tune. You said, before this, "Talking doesn't accomplish much, if anything. What does the trick is us buying existing products - this, not talking, would push the manufacturers to release more. The Sigma Art lenses we're not getting? That's because we didn't buy enough of what they made in K-mount (I'm not assigning blame, just stating a fact).
When the new D FA* primes will arrive, I hope people will buy them instead of complaining about the price."

But normhead is saying "If we right now buy up every Pentax lens out there left in Sigma's inventory, Sigma could still judge Pentax mount unworkable, because of the amount of time it took to sell them and of how much of their expected profit was eaten up by the cost of keeping those lenses in inventory."

Which is contradictory to your view. Yet you are telling me "As described in the post you were quoting - and as explained by normhead." is exactly how it works. So you are saying one thing and agreeing with someone else saying another.


Either way, Mid to Long term, I suspect K mount is essentially gone from Sigma's lineup. But IIRC Adam even had someone ask Sigma reps if they would be interested in doing small made-to-order bulk sales of Sigma lenses not currently offered in K mount... where we pay first and they mail later. And they still said they had no interest in K mount. I think they really would rather see K mount die and there be one less format out there.