Originally posted by mecrox It's easy to explain this all away and then say this just proves that everything is fine exactly as it is. But if Pentax is getting smaller and smaller with each year, that can't really be the case, can it.
And what if Pentax isn't getting smaller and smaller?
I don't know why you guys don't just come out and state the obvious. People who buy Sigma lenses are usually pretty cheap. They aren't the droids you are looking for. What's the standing joke on the internet about Pentax users? Guys who will pay $2000 for a camera body and put a $50 lens on it.
Meanwhile Pentax is courting the high rollers. People who will start with the K-1, 15,30, 24-50 and 70-200, then start looking for some primes. Those guys will make Pentax some money. How much money will Pentax make from the guys who buy Sigma lenses?
And why would a guy who wants to buy a 150-600 buy a Pentax in any case? For AF a D7200 with a 150-600would be my choice. I look at the system package, not the parts.
I have honestly never heard of a single Pentax user who bought his Pentax to put a Sigma lens on. I have only heard folks making the rather dubious claim that they would buy this or that lens if it was available for Pentax. Because it's cheap.
If I were Pentax I'd consider consider paying Sigma to make no lenses for my cameras, not the other way around.
Honestly, you can get a Nikon D5200 or a Canon TI with kit lens for $400. Them put any Sigma or Tamon lens you want on it. Find the lens you want and buy the body it goes on. Then for $1000 buy a Sigma 150-600 or whatever...
Why do these folks come on the forum and try our patience, for $400. Pentax knows, if you didn't spend $400 for a body that goes with the lens you want, there is simply no money to be made selling camera gear to you.
That's what i find distressing. People arguing that they have to have this or that Sigma lens, who won't lay out $400 bucks for a body it goes on. That is just incredible hypocrisy. With all due respect, no one wants to serve that market, except Sigma. That's why they are Sigma lenses. If Pentax and other OEMs want to try and squeeze money from that market they would be doing it. If Sigma and Tamron were getting rich doing what they are doing they'd have lots of money to invest in glass for Pentax. Their current practice suggests, they are struggling to squeeze money out of the cheapskates. People with the money buy OEM equipment.
So many people pretend like Sigma glass is something to wrote home about, Maybe a few lenses are. Before I bought my DA*60-250 I tried two copies of the 120-400. The Sigma 120-400 does not provide as much detail and clarity at 400mm as my DA* 60-250 does at 250mm.
Someone needs to step in and tell all these Sigma wannabes, "quit spending good money on crap."
There are some decent Sigma lenses out there, but it doesn't matter what the brand is, OEM lenses are preferable. And now that everyone else is making the 1.4 lenses that have been Sigma's bread and butter the last little while, Pentax, Canon, Nikon and Sony are about to eat SIgma's lunch. Sigma is doomed.
It's just so odd all these folks claiming Pentax can increase profits and market share pandering to cheapskates. Cheap customers do not profit margins make. Ask Apple. People who like what they see and will pay for what they want make good profit margins. You don't have to have the most customers to make the largest profits. Ask Apple. A slight increase in functionality commands a large dollar value in asking price. Ask Apple. Making your brand appealing to Sigma, is going down the wrong road.
There is so much camera gear out there in Pentax land, it will be along time before I exhaust all my Pentax options. I don't need Sigma. God knows I tried. My Sigma 70-300, broken, my two Sigma 120-400s returned, my Sigma 70 macro, great macro, but it sure illustrates for me what a joy it is to use my DFA 100 macro. That leaves my Sigma 8-16. Four SIgma's in the case, one occasionally used, and with the DA* 11-18 coming out, even it's days are numbered. At best, they are stop gap lenses, to keep you shooting until you can afford something better. Just my opinion of course.
In so many of these threads with people complaining about the lack of Sigma glass, it should said straight up. Pentax doesn't want you as a customer. They don't want to be the preferred brand for Sigma customers. Like Apple, they are happy to let the other brands appeal to the cheapskates. Why is that so hard to figure out.
I'm not a rich person, but I figure out how to pay for what I want. Apple computers and Pentax camera gear. It's all about personal priorities.