[ffking]

The source is known to be very eager to predict the demise of Pentax

That could be said of most people on social media, even the more mainstream ones

I actually find it a very unfortunate atitude - nobody would benefit from the brand being discontinued as things stand (the market share is too small to be worth picking up for the big brands - I suppose somebody could gobble up some tasty patents, but that's about it). The only real reason to try to push Pentax over the cliff is fear that the brand might become resurgent one day, but that's putting brand loyalty ahead of the intetests of photographers to an unacceptable degree.

---

Last edited by ffking; 09-09-2019 at 01:55 AM.

[zoolander]

Sigma dumps K mount. Thats not good for pentaxians. Tamron has been dumping Pentax too. Sigma also has the L mount alliance to look after. I do not think that Sigma or Tamron make lenses for Fujifilm X mount, and perhaps thats a good thing. Sigma and Tamron would effectively be killing Fujifilms business. Fujifilm gets a couple of Zeiss lenses, Mitakon and samyang and a couple of others. Pentax has samyang and a few others brands to choose from.

Well its not good that Sigma is going, but then Fujifilm is doing fine without them.

[Mistral75]

I think that was meant to emphasize, that most lenses from companies you listed are quite old, and same companies haven't released anything new with K mount for quite a while. I'd wager that only Irix is truly still committed, seeing how the latest macro Laowa didn't get Pentax version...

Dongzheng (Kerlee), Lomography, OPC Optical Precision Components (Meyer Optik Görlitz), Samyang, TH Swiss (Irix), Venus Optics (Laowa) and Zhong Yi (Mitakon) lenses aren't old -in the sense that they were launched fairly recently- and these are seven companies out of a list of nine manufacturers of k-mount lenses.

[solitudebound]

Something strange about all this announcement. Sigma themselves told me years ago that they quit making lenses with the PK mount. I probably kept the emails.
I think the last Sigma pk mount i have seen was on the 18-35mm art.

The whole thing with Sigma and Pentax K-mount lenses was always dubious. Sigma would often say that they didn't sell enough to justify making them but they had almost none for sale to begin with so there is no excuse for low numbers with that kind of mentality. One of the strangest examples of supply and demand in photography i have seen particularly when you have already invested in the equipment to do it. Also there was very little promotion by Sigma for their own Pentax mount lenses. Even their web site "choose mount" is still very much out of date even for Sony lenses. I had to aks Henry's here in Canada to cross reference with their Sigma charts to get some idea of what was actually available.

Sigma did drop its SA mount for the new L mount which they didn't really have to do since they really didn't have any competition and i doubt that the L-alliance will supply Sigma with parts as an incentive. I can understand uniformity but sometimes these companies make some rather questionable decisions.

However i am more than happy with what Pentax has bought out recently. I still buy Sigma lenses for Nikon f-mount and i still have a 50-500mm Bigma K-mount along with a 18-35mm Art.as well.

---

Last edited by solitudebound; 09-08-2019 at 07:01 AM.

[TwoUptons]

I think there’s a big difference between the types of lenses Sigma makes and the ones that many of the other third-party makers offer.

Sigma has decided to chase the high end AF market, requiring fancy electronics and such, while most of the others require very little in terms of their development outside of the optics.

The KA mount, for example, is pretty well defined, so a manual focus SLR lens can be adapted to K-mount pretty easily in many cases for traditional designs (like the Samyang 85mm f1.4).

If the bottom of the market is drying up, there’s really no market for anyone’s 70-300 f4-5.6 or whatever, and chasing the high end means a lot more effort to make something work on an SLR mount you don’t sell many of...

The only surprise to me has been lensbaby. I would have expected K Mount would be simple enough to support to allow its existence as a special order or something...

-Eric

[stevebrot]

Just out of curiosity, how many of the participants on this thread have purchased a Sigma product for Pentax, new, in the last five years. Don't be bashful.

Sigma? Sigma? Nobody has bought Sigma?


Steve

(...just two here...no need for more...)

[dstar]

I bought 17-70 art 30 art and 18-200 10-20

All work fine once sent with my K 3 together to Sigma to adjustment
Work without problem

[BigMackCam]

Just out of curiosity, how many of the participants on this thread have purchased a Sigma product for Pentax, new, in the last five years. Don't be bashful.

Sigma? Sigma? Nobody has bought Sigma?

I've bought three since late 2014... the 17-50 f/2.8 DG HSM, the 30mm f/1.4 Art, and the 18-300...

[Rondec]

Let me say that it isn't surprising that Sigma didn't sell many Pentax lenses. The ones that made were problematic. Most were (are) low quality lenses that are prone to flare with their main sales quality being that they are cheap. The 35 Art and the 18-35 f1.8 were the "best" lenses that Sigma produced for the K mount and even those were problematic from an auto focus standpoint, with many copies producing sub-optimal results.

If Sigma released some of their better lenses for the K mount and made the effort needed to make sure that the Pentax focus protocols worked for them, they would probably do better, but clearly they have decided to move on.

The one odd thing to me is that they have decided to focus on mirrorless, but their lenses in general are not the petite sorts of lenses that most MILC users value to go with their smaller bodies and they are just as clearly designed for longer registration distances.

[funktionsfrei]

Sigma stopped all Pentax support the moment the K-1 came out. Since that very moment, they just sold off old stock, but no new lenses were made.

A stupid and regrettable decision, since Sigma was the only lens maker that made lenses with optical lens stabilizer that work with the K-Mount.

With long focal lengths that's something you'd want to have, since the IBIS does not stabilize the viewfinder image.

And Pentax cameras do support optically stabilized lenses since the K10D.

As a reason "low revenue" was given, but that was created by Sigma themselves. Until the K-1 came out, they had several lenses in their portfolio, that were of relatively little use for Pentax photographers, as for instance the 12-24. On APS-C, Sigma had two wider lenses, the 10-20 and the 8-16, both in K-Mount. The K-1 is the first Pentax since the days of film that could use the 12-24's potential, because that's a full-frame lens. In 2016, a new version of that lens was released - no K-Mount.
I had to get a used version of the 12-24, couldn't buy a new one since there wasn't any. And Pentax' 15-30 quite obviously is no alternative if ultra wide angle is what you're after.

Sigma never pointed out that their use of optical stabilization on the K-Mount was something noteworthy; there are lots of photographers around who don't even know that optical stabilization does work with Pentax bodies. And it gives users the choice of both systems, which I deem the best possible solution.


This is utterly stupid and very bad marketing. Yes, Sigma did react in a very customer-oriented way with the firmware and mount upgrade program for several lenses that created mechanical and software problems with the K-1, but instead of building on this, they just ignore customers.

I own and use several Sigma lenses, because there are no alternatives made by Pentax and because they're economically viable. The aforementioned 12-24, and on the other end of the focal range, the "Bigma", the 50-500.

> Just out of curiosity, how many of the participants on this thread have purchased a Sigma product for Pentax, new, in the last five years. Don't be bashful.

I've got the 12-24 used, since they didn't sell it new anymore. It still has an aperture ring.


The 50-500 I've bought new, getting one of the last copies made.

Back in APS-C days, beginning in 2008, I've bought the following lenses, all new:
8-16, 10-20, 17-70(OS), 70-200/2.8, 70-300/3.5-5.6(OS) (not in that chronological order, though)

Of these lenses the 70-200 and the 70-300 can be used on the K-1, the 70-200 unfortunately is a bit soft, it presumably needs some "recentering" or somewhat.

Oh, and the "walk-around" lens I curretly use most of the time is a 24-70, also made by Sigma. That one I bought used, out of a whim for less than 100 EUR, but it works like a charm (though it doesn't inspire trust due to it's plastic mount).


So, at least I do qualify as a "Sigma-on-Pentax" user.

[ZombieArmy]

I mean what are we supposed to do about it? I'm not about to buy lenses I don't want to make Sigma release ones I do.

[Madaboutpix]

Hm. The most surprising thing about Sigma's move - if it was official policy - would seem to be their odd and arguably unprofessional way of communicating, or shall we say, leaking it. Otherwise, it wouldn't exactly come as a surprise given their announcements and treatment of the K Mount in recent years. Seriously, did anyone here have the illusion that, on the course they have taken, they would go on supporting Pentax even half-heartedly forever?

And if true, does it particularly concern me? Phew, somehow it doesn't, I must admit. Actually, the Sigma approach to lens design is noticeably different from the Pentax way. While the Pentax engineers (still) seem to care a lot about their produce delivering the goods in terms of a more holistic and photographically inspired understanding of image quality and usability, their Sigma counterparts seem to be more willing, or are forced to, cater more for a demographic that is easy to impress with specs, DxO Mark scores, shiny advertisements, enraptured influencers, and the like. I'm not saying that their allure is completely unfounded, nor that they have nothing going for them optically - I'm concerned with different design approaches or business models here. Since I've adopted Pentax for my personal photography, Pentax lenses have just worked fine for me, the readily affordable ones as well as those for which I had to save up for years. I might wish for Pentax to have this or that specific lens in their line-up, but not one of those that I have owned has let me down in terms of smooth function together with my Pentax DSLRs and the practical image results they delivered. Why would I want to risk that for something that is back-engineered to somehow work with my camera if I'm lucky, particularly in the AF department, perhaps giving me garbled EXIFs, and whatnot? I've never got it, at least not for AF lenses.

Don't get me wrong: If you cherish Sigma lenses and they work for you, feel free to mourn them. I just can't bring myself to care about them any longer. (And, mind you, I used quite a few of them in the days of film photography.)

[BigMackCam]

Let me say that it isn't surprising that Sigma didn't sell many Pentax lenses. The ones that made were problematic. Most were (are) low quality lenses that are prone to flare with their main sales quality being that they are cheap. The 35 Art and the 18-35 f1.8 were the "best" lenses that Sigma produced for the K mount and even those were problematic from an auto focus standpoint, with many copies producing sub-optimal results.

If Sigma released some of their better lenses for the K mount and made the effort needed to make sure that the Pentax focus protocols worked for them, they would probably do better,

Hmmm... I typically agree with a lot of your opinions, Vincent, but not here - not entirely, at least.

I don't have many Sigma lenses across my combined kits, but I have a few...

Only my very-low-end film-era 28-80mm Aspherical f/3.5-5.6 (I own it in Minolta AF / Sony A-mount) could, IMHO, be described as "low quality" - by which I mean, it feels cheaply made, sloppy, with light-weight plastics and a plastic mount, no damping etc. It's clearly made to a low price. But optically, it's actually decent in its class (compared, for example, to the non-SMC Pentax-F 28-80 f/3.5-4.5).

My 18-300 in K-mount is clearly a consumer-level lens, but it's solidly made and well finished, nice to use, and turns in a pretty good optical performance for this type of lens... better than Pentax' own 18-270, which I previously owned.

My 17-50 f/2.8 HSM is a step up in quality, and whilst nowhere near the level of, say, DA* lens construction, it's much better than typical kit lenses. Optically, it's very good, outperforming the DA*16-50 in certain respects. Flare performance could be better in certain situations, yes, but I wouldn't say it's prone to it... I've had very few issues.

The 30 f/1.4 Art is beautifully built - I actually had to check whether the body was synthetic or metal (it feels like the latter, but is, apparently, the former), the focusing ring is a delight, and everything feels very tight and precise. Optically, it seems to divide folks - but I love it. And I've had no flare issues whatsoever.

I will agree that AF is an issue, though. My 17-50, whilst generally pretty good, has missed enough AF attempts on the first cycle (not that many, but enough) that I typically focus twice to be absolutely certain it's precise (probably overkill, but it's become a habit by now ). My 30 Art hasn't shown any focus issues, but has a reputation for it. I use it with centre AF point generally, which is a somewhat preventative measure (though that's often how I shoot anyway), so perhaps that's why I've had no problems. The 18-300 seems accurate, but it's a much slower lens so perhaps I simply don't notice an issue if there is one...

[angerdan]

I'd sell the 35mm 1.4 Art for the FA 31mm 1.8 Limited - i like the smaller size and faster AF of the Limited.

Only Sigma lens still interesting for me is the 500mm 4.5.

[Rondec]

Hmmm... I typically agree with a lot of your opinions, Vincent, but not here - not entirely, at least.

I don't have many Sigma lenses across my combined kits, but I have a few...

Only my very-low-end film-era 28-80mm Aspherical f/3.5-5.6 (I own it in Minolta AF / Sony A-mount) could, IMHO, be described as "low quality" - by which I mean, it feels cheaply made, sloppy, with light-weight plastics and a plastic mount, no damping etc. It's clearly made to a low price. But optically, it's actually decent in its class (compared, for example, to the non-SMC Pentax-F 28-80 f/3.5-4.5).

My 18-300 in K-mount is clearly a consumer-level lens, but it's solidly made and well finished, nice to use, and turns in a pretty good optical performance for this type of lens... better than Pentax' own 18-270, which I previously owned.

My 17-50 f/2.8 HSM is a step up in quality, and whilst nowhere near the level of, say, DA* lens construction, it's much better than typical kit lenses. Optically, it's very good, outperforming the DA*16-50 in certain respects. Flare performance could be better in certain situations, yes, but I wouldn't say it's prone to it... I've had very few issues.

The 30 f/1.4 Art is beautifully built - I actually had to check whether the body was synthetic or metal (it feels like the latter, but is, apparently, the former), the focusing ring is a delight, and everything feels very tight and precise. Optically, it seems to divide folks - but I love it. And I've had no flare issues whatsoever.

I will agree that AF is an issue, though. My 17-50, whilst generally pretty good, has missed enough AF attempts on the first cycle (not that many, but enough) that I typically focus twice to be absolutely certain it's precise (probably overkill, but it's become a habit by now ). My 30 Art hasn't shown any focus issues, but has a reputation for it. I use it with centre AF point generally, which is a somewhat preventative measure (though that's often how I shoot anyway), so perhaps that's why I've had no problems. The 18-300 seems accurate, but it's a much slower lens so perhaps I simply don't notice an issue if there is one...

I owned the earlier 30mm f1.4 and was extremely disappointed by the borders, even stopped down. Contrast on it and the Sigma 70-300 I owned were really not great.

The 18-300 is probably fine for what it is, but somehow Pentaxians don't seem enchanted by super zooms. The 17-50 is probably fine, but truthfully, the lens that Pentaxians always seemed to migrate to if they wanted an APS-C walk around other than Pentax's own 16-50, 17-70, 18-135, or 16-85 was the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, which for whatever reason always seemed to get better reviews than Sigma's.

My point is mostly that most of the more recent (and better) Sigmas never made it to K mount and so we are judging sales of Sigma's lenses for Pentax based on older and less well regard lenses. I guarantee there would be folks who would purchase lenses like the 150-600 or their Art lenses over Pentax's current offerings, particularly if Sigma figured out how to make them focus a bit better on Pentax cameras.