[TwoUptons]

A true shame indeed. I bought the 35mm art and I adore it. Such a beautiful lens.

For whatever reason, we Pentax users seem to have not been able to overcome the perception of Sigma as a seller of lesser lenses...

I don’t know why, as the folks who like them seem to really like them...

-Eric

[clackers]

For whatever reason, we Pentax users seem to have not been able to overcome the perception of Sigma as a seller of lesser lenses...



I don’t know why, as the folks who like them seem to really like them...



-Eric

Yeah, they and Tamron have never been embraced by Pentaxians.

Several reasons, I suppose.

[boriscleto]

I still have a Sigma 10-20, but if I could find a Pentax 12-24 at a good price I would dump it. Still mad at Hoya for not letting Tokina make it for K-mount. There is still an $80-100 price difference between the two...

[BigMackCam]

For whatever reason, we Pentax users seem to have not been able to overcome the perception of Sigma as a seller of lesser lenses...

I don’t know why, as the folks who like them seem to really like them...

A few of them do have quirks. Where AF is concerned, I strongly suspect this relates to the reverse-engineered AF protocols. Then there's the compatibility issue where some older Sigma lenses just won't work with newer bodies. Finally, there's a contingent of photographers across all brands who look down upon anything that's either not OEM, or perhaps a premium brand (like Zeiss, for example). That bias spreads to others who believe and repeat what they've read rather than validating others' opinions for themselves.

I own a handful of Sigma lenses for both Pentax K and Sony A-mount, and I really like them. I probably cut them a little extra slack for being third party products, but overall I think they're very good indeed.

[RobA_Oz]

For whatever reason, we Pentax users seem to have not been able to overcome the perception of Sigma as a seller of lesser lenses...

I don’t know why, as the folks who like them seem to really like them...

-Eric

History, I suspect, plays some part in this. They were, some time ago, a maker of lenses that were cheaper for one or more reasons, principally design and materials, but also manufacturing control. It’s hard to shake the perception that creates, especially where part of your market has been around for a long time.

That said, I’ve had several Sigmas in the past, but upgraded to the Pentax equivalents (and they were upgrades), except for the 8-16. Now they’ve cut down the line of their offerings in K-mount, they don’t get any more business from me, even if they’re just running down stock.

As long as Ricoh turns out superb product, they’ll get my money, even if the higher prices mean I have to wait longer.

[xmeda]

Perhaps, perhaps not. There's still plenty of glass around


Well, judging by the number of K-1 and K-1II owners we have on these forums - and that's going to be a fraction of the overall user base, of course - Pentax FF seems to have done rather well.

Judging by shrinking market share not that well.

Although the K-5 wasn't renowned for its AF, this is far more likely to be an issue with Sigma's reverse-engineered Pentax AF protocols. I own a lot of Pentax AF lenses, and not one of them has problems nailing focus on my K-5, K-3 and K-3II (with the exception of an old Pentax-FA 28-105mm F3.2-4.5 AL that is a little unreliable at the long end - a known issue). My Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 isn't bad, but not quite as good and not 100% reliable on the first focus attempt. My Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art - one of my favourite lenses - is infamous for AF difficulties on Pentax bodies when using anything other than the centre AF point. Most of the time, I use that AF point and focus / re-compose, so it hasn't been an issue for me... even on the K-5.

It might be worth trying your Sigma 35/1.4 with the next Pentax APS-C body before you buy... I'm not entirely confident it's Ricoh's issue to resolve

So you are comparing F2.8 or F3.2-4.5 lenses to F1.4 lens with little contrast and shallow DOF?

Yes F1.4 sigmas are infamous, because there are not many F1.4 lenses from pentax. AFAIK only FA50/1.4 which is painful to nail focus with ( i have that lens for 11 years), then DA55/1.4 which focuses slow and not very consistently either and then FA*85/1.4 which only few guys have.
Concerning the latest DFA50/1.4... I'd like to know who bought this lens for his K5. Most buyers usually have K1 or at least K3/KP.

K5 really is weak with F1.4-F2.8 lenses and it is caused mainly by AF module. Even FA35/2 or FA*24/2 are nothing to write home about. It is not about Sigma. Sigma only tried to provide some fast lenses for us that are othervise unavailable for pentax users. And I hope that next APS-C will be better in this fast lens AF area.
Don't worry, even many competitor cameras struggle with such fast lenses. When shooting weddings guys with EOS5DIII or D750 have insane amount of wasted photos when they use lenses like 85/1.4, 50/1.4 and similar. Sigma 18-35/1.8 also is notorious for AF issues, but mostly thanks to cameras that cannot handle it properly.

I also have lenses like Sig8-16, Sig 17-70, Sig 100-300/4, Sig 50-500... and well, there are zero problems with AF on K5. That camera simply needs some contrast for phase detection to work with. And lenses like F2.8 or faster barely provide such "data". With 17-50/2.8 I prefer contrast detect as it is more reliable than PDAF on K5.

Your Sig30/1.4 probably is perfectly OK, you(we) just need reliable focusing camera.

[BigMackCam]

Yes F1.4 sigmas are infamous, because there are not many F1.4 lenses from pentax. AFAIK only FA50/1.4 which is painful to nail focus with ( i have that lens for 11 years), then DA55/1.4 which focuses slow and not very consistently either and then FA*85/1.4 which only few guys have.

I've not had any problems nailing focus with the FA50/1.4 on my K-5, K-3 and K-3II, using any of the AF points. Mine works just fine.

Plus, the FA31 Limited - not much slower at f/1.8 - isn't known to have any AF issues.

Your Sig30/1.4 probably is perfectly OK, you(we) just need reliable focusing camera

The Sigma 30/1.4 Art is known for AF problems on other brands too (and its predecessor was even worse). So either the lens is at fault, or all the different branded cameras it was tested on aren't reliably focusing. I have a hunch as to which it is...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 08-20-2019 at 02:39 AM.

[Winder]

A few of them do have quirks. Where AF is concerned, I strongly suspect this relates to the reverse-engineered AF protocols. Then there's the compatibility issue where some older Sigma lenses just won't work with newer bodies. Finally, there's a contingent of photographers across all brands who look down upon anything that's either not OEM, or perhaps a premium brand (like Zeiss, for example). That bias spreads to others who believe and repeat what they've read rather than validating others' opinions for themselves.

I own a handful of Sigma lenses for both Pentax K and Sony A-mount, and I really like them. I probably cut them a little extra slack for being third party products, but overall I think they're very good indeed.

I don't have any issues with 3rd party glass. Until the D-FA* 70-200mm came out the Sigma 85mm F/1.4 was the best lens I owned for the K-1 in terms of AF and image quality. I have the Sony-Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 which is made and probably designed by Tamron, but its an excellent lens. People don't realize that most of Tamron's business is making OEM lenses for Canon/Nikon/Sony. At one point Tamron was making most if not all the kit lenses. The ART series represents an excellent value. The ART series might not be perfect for the right lens for everyone, but they are still excellent lenses. The Tamron SP lenses are also very good lenses. Some people only care about the brand name however.

[arnold]

Corporation don't know about shame, they only know about profits and ignore the rest.

Well I for one hope Pentax is profitable.

[dstar]

One of our readers asked why you offer so few of your lenses with the Pentax mount, and he also asked about longer telephotos, in particular. If the mounts are fairly simple -- if it's really just a matter of changing out the mount, shouldn't it be possible to make more Pentax lenses? Or is it still just a cost issue, even for a relatively small investment?

[Note, this section has been edited 4/12/14, as I had misunderstood what Yamaki san was saying, see the editorial note following this exchange]

KY: Pentax still uses mechanical parts to control the aperture. So, mechanically, it's totally different from other mounts, even though it uses the same optics. Making a Pentax mount means we have to use special parts just for Pentax mounts.2014 interview with Sigma CEO about Pentax

[Winder]

KY: Pentax still uses mechanical parts to control the aperture. So, mechanically, it's totally different from other mounts, even though it uses the same optics. Making a Pentax mount means we have to use special parts just for Pentax mounts.2014 interview with Sigma CEO about Pentax

With the K-1 Pentax moved to the KAF4 mount which no longer requires mechanical aperture control. Going forward it would be easy for Sigma to make lenses for K-mount, but there just aren't that many KAF4 cameras in the market for Sigma to invest in the mount. Hopefully Ricoh can change that, but they don't seem to be in any hurry.

[boriscleto]

One of our readers asked why you offer so few of your lenses with the Pentax mount, and he also asked about longer telephotos, in particular. If the mounts are fairly simple -- if it's really just a matter of changing out the mount, shouldn't it be possible to make more Pentax lenses? Or is it still just a cost issue, even for a relatively small investment?

[Note, this section has been edited 4/12/14, as I had misunderstood what Yamaki san was saying, see the editorial note following this exchange]

KY: Pentax still uses mechanical parts to control the aperture. So, mechanically, it's totally different from other mounts, even though it uses the same optics. Making a Pentax mount means we have to use special parts just for Pentax mounts.2014 interview with Sigma CEO about Pentax

And now Pentax has KAF4 and a FF camera, and Sigma still won't make new lenses for Pentax. And when he said that they were still making lenses for Nikon with mechanical aperture...

[dstar]

I not sure I can copy full and paste here interview but k mount not only one issue
They claim no interest from Pentax to cooperation and to small number order
They basically they can’t offer production with very small number-order.
Interview was 2014 nothing to much change in 2019


KY: Yes. So, we'd like to make as many lenses for Pentax as possible, but with very small demand we cannot make them frequently. For such a lens, the long back-order times are a big problem for us. So we cannot make too wide a product line for Pentax. For example, a 300mm f/2.8 -- maybe we can produce this for Pentax once every few months; but some people may need a 300mm f/2.8 now. We cannot make it so often.

DE: Ah -- you can't afford to carry a large inventory given the small sales volume, but you also have a minimum production run that's economically viable. So you end up having long lead times, sometimes. I see, that makes sense, very interesting.

[Ed. Note: I'd originally misinterpreted Yamaki san's comments here, so he clarified what he was saying in a further email exchange I had with him. I had thought he was saying that Pentax lenses were different simply because they used a mechanical aperture coupling, vs an electronic one. As several astute readers pointed out, they do, but so do lenses from Nikon and Sony.

Yamaki san's point is that lenses with mechanical aperture mechanisms require separate production runs to produce each type, vs an electronic system that would just need a different arrangement of contacts and reprogramming of the lens's CPU.

The problem for Pentaxians is that there just aren't enough of them, so demand for Pentax-mount lenses is small to the point that it's economically difficult to produce them, or at least to do so in a way that would keep Pentax users happy.

The issue is that the smaller a production run, the more costly each individual unit is, due to inefficiencies associated with switching the production line from one lens to another. As the run length becomes smaller, that fixed switchover cost become a bigger and bigger part of the cost of each unit. From a practical standpoint, there's a lower limit on run length, below which it's just not profitable for them to produce a product.

For popular lens models, the minimum production run isn't too big a problem for Pentax users, as there's enough demand that Sigma can produce a batch of lenses often enough to more or less keep them in stock in the retail channel. As you get into slightly more obscure, specialized, or perhaps more expensive glass with less demand, though, the minimum affordable production run for a given model might amount to 6 months, a year, or even a couple of years' worth of demand on the Pentax mount.

As Yamaki san explained to me, it wouldn't be viable for him to produce and market a lens that might be unavailable in the market for 6 months or a year at a time - Potential customers would become very unhappy with Sigma over the poor availability. (And, adding my own interpretation here, how could they efficiently let people know "hey, remember that cool lens we said we were making for the Pentax mount that hasn't been available for the last year? It's available now, so get out your wallets!")

At first thought, you might say "well, what's the problem, they can just build a batch of them, and warehouse them until that batch runs out, then do another run." The problem is, doing so would again increase costs, because holding large quantities of lenses in inventory would tie up Sigma's capital, meaning it wasn't available for other things that would give a much higher return. Even if Sigma were able to borrow additional money to use to hold that inventory, they'd be paying interest on it, which would again increase costs.

So, that's the full story: In my latest email with him, Yamaki san expressed what I believe was very genuine regret that he isn't able to bring more of their lenses to the Pentax mount, but can only do so for the most popular models, that will generate enough demand to be

[ZombieArmy]

I've never once felt compelled to buy a lensbaby product. I'm not in the market of spending a few hundred dollars on "fun lenses" when I could purchase legacy lenses at a fraction of the cost that are just as fun.

[slartibartfast01]

Yeah, they and Tamron have never been embraced by Pentaxians.

Several reasons, I suppose.

The only issue I have with my Tamron 70-200 is the inability to focus in live view which took me by surprise when I was taking some moon shots but now I just accept it.