More Limited lenses

mecrox · 03-10-2018, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

What benefit would Pentax get paying a fee to a company that reverse-engineers everyone’s mounts and pays nothing for the rights?
.:

It’s swings and roundabouts. There may be benefits in letting third parties fill gaps in the line which would otherwise remain empty and, overall, add products which make the system look much stronger than it actually is. This may help customer retention, sell more bodies and attract more new buyers to the system. Against this, however, there is the very obvious loss of first party revenue. It’s also may be quite difficult to be selective rather than all or nothing, so one can’t say to a third party yes you can do a 20mm f2.8 UWA but no you can’t do a 50mm f1.4. A company with only a small catalogue of modern lenses to begin with could be swamped. Maybe better in that case to say no overall.

Pentax do work happily with third parties, however, such as Tamron and Tokina. I suspect in the case of Sigma there may be a long history of bad blood among some companies over Sigma’s business practices. That may have as much or more to do with the situation as anything else.

Kunzite · 03-10-2018, 02:53 AM - **1 Like**

There is a disconnect between our immediate perspective (we want this, now, even if that would kill the company) and their longer term planning.
I'm sure they already considered all the essential lenses. Patience.

**RobA_Oz** · 03-10-2018, 03:31 AM

It's fairly evident that Ricoh's long-term strategy for Pentax is to take the brand up-market. The recent statement they made about planning for more Limited lenses reinforces that. Those who want a full range of lenses or bodies in the near term do not seem to realise that achieving this would run counter to that strategy, because you would have the situation that Sigma is in, where your optical designs are excellent, but your manufacturing tolerances are such that the promise of the design is often not achieved. It makes for a cheaper lens and more of them, but discerning customers will be returning lenses until they get one that matches the design expectation, so your reputation suffers at that end of the market. Digitalis has reported just that experience with Sigma lenses, here. I'm not suggesting Pentax lenses are hugely better in that respect, yet, but I wouldn't mind betting that the latest ones are improving, and that the Tamron rebrands are more expensive than the originals at least in part because they exhibit less variation than them.

repaap · 03-10-2018, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by mecrox

It’s swings and roundabouts. There may be benefits in letting third parties fill gaps in the line which would otherwise remain empty and, overall, add products which make the system look much stronger than it actually is. This may help customer retention, sell more bodies and attract more new buyers to the system. Against this, however, there is the very obvious loss of first party revenue. It’s also may be quite difficult to be selective rather than all or nothing, so one can’t say to a third party yes you can do a 20mm f2.8 UWA but no you can’t do a 50mm f1.4. A company with only a small catalogue of modern lenses to begin with could be swamped. Maybe better in that case to say no overall.

Pentax do work happily with third parties, however, such as Tamron and Tokina. I suspect in the case of Sigma there may be a long history of bad blood among some companies over Sigma’s business practices. That may have as much or more to do with the situation as anything else.

Well, Pentax has long history with Tokina and Tamron. Does not seem to be the case with Sigma. So that is that. I can understand it perfectly, and just yesterday on my skiing trip I was thinking that this co'op with Tokina is simply brilliant and long history does nothng but good to it. For pentax getting Tokina patents and R & D and also getting some money back from 50/1,4 desing too. Tamron is great lens manufactorer, so all good.

**monochrome** · 03-10-2018, 04:59 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mecrox

It’s swings and roundabouts. There may be benefits in letting third parties fill gaps in the line which would otherwise remain empty and, overall, add products which make the system look much stronger than it actually is. This may help customer retention, sell more bodies and attract more new buyers to the system. Against this, however, there is the very obvious loss of first party revenue. It’s also may be quite difficult to be selective rather than all or nothing, so one can’t say to a third party yes you can do a 20mm f2.8 UWA but no you can’t do a 50mm f1.4. A company with only a small catalogue of modern lenses to begin with could be swamped. Maybe better in that case to say no overall.

Pentax do work happily with third parties, however, such as Tamron and Tokina. I suspect in the case of Sigma there may be a long history of bad blood among some companies over Sigma’s business practices. That may have as much or more to do with the situation as anything else.

Lenses are durable. Cameras are depreciable - essentially disposable. The business necessity is to increase the installed base of K-mounts in the general market so that there is an incentive for owners to buy lenses, not the other way round.

A successful business relationship must be mutually beneficial to the parties involved. Arrangements such as ~~Cosina~~ Copal contract-manufacturing the Q lenses, the recent Tamron rebrandings modified with Pentax signatures or the rumored co-development with or licensing of designs by Tokina benefit both companies. I cannot see any benefit to Pentax should they pay a fee to Sigma so that Sigma would produce a batch of Sigma-branded, Sigma-standards lenses with Pentax mounts.

mecrox · 03-10-2018, 05:02 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by monochrome

A successful business relationship must be mutually beneficial to the parties involved. Arrangements such as Cosina contract-manufacturing the Q lenses, the recent Tamron rebrandings modified with Pentax signatures or the rumored co-development with or licensing of designs by Tokina benefit both companies. I cannot see any benefit to Pentax should they pay a fee to Sigma so that Sigma would produce a batch of Sigma-branded, Sigma-standards lenses with Pentax mounts.

A fee is most probably in our imagination, although there are circumstances in which an arrangement like that might benefit both parties. But that’s not the reason for the absence of Sigma Art lenses, I would think. Besides, few ask how actually, really good they in fact are. A post above suggests they may not be exactly the Holy Grail. For example, they may be cheaper because they are made to tolerances a first party would find unacceptably loose resulting in too much copy variation and a high rate of returns.

**monochrome** · 03-10-2018, 05:13 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by mecrox

A fee is most probably in our imagination, although there are circumstances in which an arrangement like that might benefit both parties. But that’s not the reason for the absence of Sigma Art lenses, I would think. Besides, few ask how actually, really good they in fact are.

I added to my post after you quoted - and since I don’t own any I wasn’t going to open the discussion of whether Sigma Art lenses are really good enough to hang Pentax’s hat on. I just think paying to have someone else issue a lens is the long way around. Far better to spend the money on something lacking on the bodies, since the thin catalog of lenses is really a myth except places like this.

Mistral75 · 03-10-2018, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

(...) Arrangements such as Cosina contract-manufacturing the Q lenses (...).

Wrong C:

the Q lenses are manufactured by Nidec Copal, not Cosina.

Interchangeable lens | Nidec Copal Corporation

photoptimist · 03-10-2018, 07:03 AM - **1 Like**

A payment by Pentax to Sigma to help Pentax lose lens sales to Sigma seems like a double money-loser for Pentax.

It's certainly possible that the availability of more Sigma lenses might sway a few more people to consider Pentax. And yet, there are so many factors influencing camera choice (sensor IQ, IBIS, body shape, AF, video, special features like pixelshift) that I can't help think that Sigma lens availability only affects a minuscule percentage Pentax-or-not-Pentax decisions. It's not like Pentax would suddenly knock Canikon off it's pedestal if only Sigma lenses were available for Pentax.

Offsetting this few percent more body sales would be losses of Pentax lens sales to some percent of all current and future Pentax body owners. That is, all the people who bought Pentax anyway can now decide to switch from Pentax lenses to Sigma lenses (or spend more of the lens budget on Sigma, not Pentax). Moreover, people who buy Pentax because Sigma is available aren't likely to be good customers of Pentax lens because they always wanted Sigma lenses.

The number of Pentax body owners that switch to Sigma lenses is likely to exceed the number of added Pentax body owners. Thus, lost sales (in lenses) exceeds gained sales (in bodies) and certainly does not recoup the money Pentax would have to pay Sigma to make Sigma to support them.

beholder3 · 03-10-2018, 07:11 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mecrox

A post above suggests they may not be exactly the Holy Grail.

Their quality control has not improved beyond "poor" in the last 10 years. Look at the copy variation chart here: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2015/09/allvariance.jpg
The copy-to-copy quality differences are far greater than the differences between the average Sigma lens and the average other lens.
Call it a full scale lottery.

Oh, and their OS is... How a Sigma Art Lens Messed Up My Ferrari Photo Shoot

There is a reason why Sigma lenses have to be cheap. Why they have to offer their problem repair tool dock. Why they have to offer longer warranties.

**monochrome** · 03-10-2018, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Mistral75

Wrong C:

the Q lenses are manufactured by Nidec Copal, not Cosina.

Interchangeable lens | Nidec Copal Corporation

My bad. Corrected above.

**monochrome** · 03-10-2018, 07:30 AM - **3 Likes**

@photoptimist all of which presumes profit per unit sold is equal between cameras and lenses (for readers - hint - lenses carry much more profit / unit than cameras).

Pentax know what they are doing. They have a long-term plan, and they’re playing it. We complain because we are mortal and temporal and time is our ultimate non-recoverable resource. A corporation, however, has a theoretical infinite life independent of its contemporary employees and and customers, and can seek a different reward horizon than any individual buyer at an incidence moment.A corporation has a stewardship duty to act concurrently for the present and for the future. In the future, todays’s customer is dead.

Kunzite · 03-10-2018, 07:36 AM

@beholder:
Perhaps it's the other way around? That is how they're cheap?
We - as outsiders - can barely begin to guess what kind of compromises are employed in order to reduce the costs. But a price tag is immediately noticeable.

beholder3 · 03-10-2018, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

(for readers - hint - lenses carry much more profit / unit than cameras).

Often claimed, but never supported by any evidence. Do you have any?

This is made more complex by the extreme diversity of what "a lens" is. A $90 Tamron 70-300 or a $2000 DFA 150-450.

CIPA data suggests the average lens sold value is south of $500 in cheapo plastic land.

photoptimist · 03-10-2018, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

@photoptimist all of which presumes profit per unit sold is equal between cameras and lenses (for readers - hint - lenses carry much more profit / unit than cameras).

Pentax know what they are doing. They have a long-term plan, and they’re playing it. We complain because we are mortal and temporal and time is our ultimate non-recoverable resource. A corporation, however, has a theoretical infinite life independent of contemporary employees and can seek a different reward horizon than any individual buyer at an incidence moment.

Yes, if profit-per-lens exceeds profit-per-body, then losing lens sales to boost body sales is an extremely poor business decision.

(As an aside: I wonder if it's still true that lenses are the profit drivers for camera makers. Data from 2017 shows shipments of 19.2 million lenses and 11.7 million cameras. That's a ratio of only 1.6:1 implying that most camera buyers never buy a second lens. Worse, the lens shipment data presumably includes both third-party lenses and low-end kit-lenses, neither of which would provide profit to the camera maker. In the era of the prime lens (and crappy third-party lenses), I'm sure the ratio of lenses-to-bodies and profit-per-lens was much higher. Decent zoom lenses have reduced sales of primes and decent third-party lens makers have reduced body-maker's profits on lenses.)

03-10-2018, 04:59 AM - 1 Like	#110
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by mecrox It’s swings and roundabouts. There may be benefits in letting third parties fill gaps in the line which would otherwise remain empty and, overall, add products which make the system look much stronger than it actually is. This may help customer retention, sell more bodies and attract more new buyers to the system. Against this, however, there is the very obvious loss of first party revenue. It’s also may be quite difficult to be selective rather than all or nothing, so one can’t say to a third party yes you can do a 20mm f2.8 UWA but no you can’t do a 50mm f1.4. A company with only a small catalogue of modern lenses to begin with could be swamped. Maybe better in that case to say no overall. Pentax do work happily with third parties, however, such as Tamron and Tokina. I suspect in the case of Sigma there may be a long history of bad blood among some companies over Sigma’s business practices. That may have as much or more to do with the situation as anything else. Lenses are durable. Cameras are depreciable - essentially disposable. The business necessity is to increase the installed base of K-mounts in the general market so that there is an incentive for owners to buy lenses, not the other way round. A successful business relationship must be mutually beneficial to the parties involved. Arrangements such as ~~Cosina~~ Copal contract-manufacturing the Q lenses, the recent Tamron rebrandings modified with Pentax signatures or the rumored co-development with or licensing of designs by Tokina benefit both companies. I cannot see any benefit to Pentax should they pay a fee to Sigma so that Sigma would produce a batch of Sigma-branded, Sigma-standards lenses with Pentax mounts. Last edited by monochrome; 03-10-2018 at 07:26 AM.

03-10-2018, 05:02 AM - 1 Like	#111
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Originally posted by monochrome A successful business relationship must be mutually beneficial to the parties involved. Arrangements such as Cosina contract-manufacturing the Q lenses, the recent Tamron rebrandings modified with Pentax signatures or the rumored co-development with or licensing of designs by Tokina benefit both companies. I cannot see any benefit to Pentax should they pay a fee to Sigma so that Sigma would produce a batch of Sigma-branded, Sigma-standards lenses with Pentax mounts. A fee is most probably in our imagination, although there are circumstances in which an arrangement like that might benefit both parties. But that’s not the reason for the absence of Sigma Art lenses, I would think. Besides, few ask how actually, really good they in fact are. A post above suggests they may not be exactly the Holy Grail. For example, they may be cheaper because they are made to tolerances a first party would find unacceptably loose resulting in too much copy variation and a high rate of returns. Last edited by mecrox; 03-10-2018 at 05:20 AM.

03-10-2018, 07:30 AM - 3 Likes	#117
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	@photoptimist all of which presumes profit per unit sold is equal between cameras and lenses (for readers - hint - lenses carry much more profit / unit than cameras). Pentax know what they are doing. They have a long-term plan, and they’re playing it. We complain because we are mortal and temporal and time is our ultimate non-recoverable resource. A corporation, however, has a theoretical infinite life independent of its contemporary employees and and customers, and can seek a different reward horizon than any individual buyer at an incidence moment.A corporation has a stewardship duty to act concurrently for the present and for the future. In the future, todays’s customer is dead. Last edited by monochrome; 03-10-2018 at 07:42 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
More, more, more light!!!	Grig	Monthly Photo Contests	5	01-10-2018 02:21 AM
More and More Lenses Can Be Adapted To Pentax K Mount	Fenwoodian	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	07-13-2017 07:36 PM
DA15 Limited vs DA21 Limited - more versatile "walkaround" lens debate continues	madison_wi_gal	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	80	03-07-2017 06:11 PM
Lenses, lenses, and more lenses, a camera (or 2) and a camera bag?	krs	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	01-04-2009 04:11 PM

03-10-2018, 02:32 AM	#106
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Originally posted by monochrome What benefit would Pentax get paying a fee to a company that reverse-engineers everyone’s mounts and pays nothing for the rights? .: It’s swings and roundabouts. There may be benefits in letting third parties fill gaps in the line which would otherwise remain empty and, overall, add products which make the system look much stronger than it actually is. This may help customer retention, sell more bodies and attract more new buyers to the system. Against this, however, there is the very obvious loss of first party revenue. It’s also may be quite difficult to be selective rather than all or nothing, so one can’t say to a third party yes you can do a 20mm f2.8 UWA but no you can’t do a 50mm f1.4. A company with only a small catalogue of modern lenses to begin with could be swamped. Maybe better in that case to say no overall. Pentax do work happily with third parties, however, such as Tamron and Tokina. I suspect in the case of Sigma there may be a long history of bad blood among some companies over Sigma’s business practices. That may have as much or more to do with the situation as anything else.

03-10-2018, 02:53 AM - 1 Like	#107
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	There is a disconnect between our immediate perspective (we want this, now, even if that would kill the company) and their longer term planning. I'm sure they already considered all the essential lenses. Patience.

03-10-2018, 03:31 AM	#108
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,197	It's fairly evident that Ricoh's long-term strategy for Pentax is to take the brand up-market. The recent statement they made about planning for more Limited lenses reinforces that. Those who want a full range of lenses or bodies in the near term do not seem to realise that achieving this would run counter to that strategy, because you would have the situation that Sigma is in, where your optical designs are excellent, but your manufacturing tolerances are such that the promise of the design is often not achieved. It makes for a cheaper lens and more of them, but discerning customers will be returning lenses until they get one that matches the design expectation, so your reputation suffers at that end of the market. Digitalis has reported just that experience with Sigma lenses, here. I'm not suggesting Pentax lenses are hugely better in that respect, yet, but I wouldn't mind betting that the latest ones are improving, and that the Tamron rebrands are more expensive than the originals at least in part because they exhibit less variation than them.

03-10-2018, 04:02 AM	#109
repaap Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,242	Originally posted by mecrox It’s swings and roundabouts. There may be benefits in letting third parties fill gaps in the line which would otherwise remain empty and, overall, add products which make the system look much stronger than it actually is. This may help customer retention, sell more bodies and attract more new buyers to the system. Against this, however, there is the very obvious loss of first party revenue. It’s also may be quite difficult to be selective rather than all or nothing, so one can’t say to a third party yes you can do a 20mm f2.8 UWA but no you can’t do a 50mm f1.4. A company with only a small catalogue of modern lenses to begin with could be swamped. Maybe better in that case to say no overall. Pentax do work happily with third parties, however, such as Tamron and Tokina. I suspect in the case of Sigma there may be a long history of bad blood among some companies over Sigma’s business practices. That may have as much or more to do with the situation as anything else. Well, Pentax has long history with Tokina and Tamron. Does not seem to be the case with Sigma. So that is that. I can understand it perfectly, and just yesterday on my skiing trip I was thinking that this co'op with Tokina is simply brilliant and long history does nothng but good to it. For pentax getting Tokina patents and R & D and also getting some money back from 50/1,4 desing too. Tamron is great lens manufactorer, so all good.

03-10-2018, 05:13 AM - 2 Likes	#112
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by mecrox A fee is most probably in our imagination, although there are circumstances in which an arrangement like that might benefit both parties. But that’s not the reason for the absence of Sigma Art lenses, I would think. Besides, few ask how actually, really good they in fact are. I added to my post after you quoted - and since I don’t own any I wasn’t going to open the discussion of whether Sigma Art lenses are really good enough to hang Pentax’s hat on. I just think paying to have someone else issue a lens is the long way around. Far better to spend the money on something lacking on the bodies, since the thin catalog of lenses is really a myth except places like this.

03-10-2018, 06:44 AM	#113
Mistral75 Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Paris, France Posts: 7,527	Originally posted by monochrome (...) Arrangements such as Cosina contract-manufacturing the Q lenses (...). Wrong C: the Q lenses are manufactured by Nidec Copal, not Cosina. Interchangeable lens \| Nidec Copal Corporation

03-10-2018, 07:03 AM - 1 Like	#114
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,122	A payment by Pentax to Sigma to help Pentax lose lens sales to Sigma seems like a double money-loser for Pentax. It's certainly possible that the availability of more Sigma lenses might sway a few more people to consider Pentax. And yet, there are so many factors influencing camera choice (sensor IQ, IBIS, body shape, AF, video, special features like pixelshift) that I can't help think that Sigma lens availability only affects a minuscule percentage Pentax-or-not-Pentax decisions. It's not like Pentax would suddenly knock Canikon off it's pedestal if only Sigma lenses were available for Pentax. Offsetting this few percent more body sales would be losses of Pentax lens sales to some percent of all current and future Pentax body owners. That is, all the people who bought Pentax anyway can now decide to switch from Pentax lenses to Sigma lenses (or spend more of the lens budget on Sigma, not Pentax). Moreover, people who buy Pentax because Sigma is available aren't likely to be good customers of Pentax lens because they always wanted Sigma lenses. The number of Pentax body owners that switch to Sigma lenses is likely to exceed the number of added Pentax body owners. Thus, lost sales (in lenses) exceeds gained sales (in bodies) and certainly does not recoup the money Pentax would have to pay Sigma to make Sigma to support them.

03-10-2018, 07:11 AM - 1 Like	#115
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Originally posted by mecrox A post above suggests they may not be exactly the Holy Grail. Their quality control has not improved beyond "poor" in the last 10 years. Look at the copy variation chart here: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2015/09/allvariance.jpg The copy-to-copy quality differences are far greater than the differences between the average Sigma lens and the average other lens. Call it a full scale lottery. Oh, and their OS is... How a Sigma Art Lens Messed Up My Ferrari Photo Shoot There is a reason why Sigma lenses have to be cheap. Why they have to offer their problem repair tool dock. Why they have to offer longer warranties.

03-10-2018, 07:27 AM	#116
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Mistral75 Wrong C: the Q lenses are manufactured by Nidec Copal, not Cosina. Interchangeable lens \| Nidec Copal Corporation My bad. Corrected above.

03-10-2018, 07:36 AM	#118
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	@beholder: Perhaps it's the other way around? That is how they're cheap? We - as outsiders - can barely begin to guess what kind of compromises are employed in order to reduce the costs. But a price tag is immediately noticeable.

03-10-2018, 07:39 AM	#119
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Originally posted by monochrome (for readers - hint - lenses carry much more profit / unit than cameras). Often claimed, but never supported by any evidence. Do you have any? This is made more complex by the extreme diversity of what "a lens" is. A $90 Tamron 70-300 or a $2000 DFA 150-450. CIPA data suggests the average lens sold value is south of $500 in cheapo plastic land.

03-10-2018, 08:07 AM	#120
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,122	Originally posted by monochrome @photoptimist all of which presumes profit per unit sold is equal between cameras and lenses (for readers - hint - lenses carry much more profit / unit than cameras). Pentax know what they are doing. They have a long-term plan, and they’re playing it. We complain because we are mortal and temporal and time is our ultimate non-recoverable resource. A corporation, however, has a theoretical infinite life independent of contemporary employees and can seek a different reward horizon than any individual buyer at an incidence moment. Yes, if profit-per-lens exceeds profit-per-body, then losing lens sales to boost body sales is an extremely poor business decision. (As an aside: I wonder if it's still true that lenses are the profit drivers for camera makers. Data from 2017 shows shipments of 19.2 million lenses and 11.7 million cameras. That's a ratio of only 1.6:1 implying that most camera buyers never buy a second lens. Worse, the lens shipment data presumably includes both third-party lenses and low-end kit-lenses, neither of which would provide profit to the camera maker. In the era of the prime lens (and crappy third-party lenses), I'm sure the ratio of lenses-to-bodies and profit-per-lens was much higher. Decent zoom lenses have reduced sales of primes and decent third-party lens makers have reduced body-maker's profits on lenses.)