[BigMackCam]

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 30mm f/1.4 Art is allegedly much improved over the version you owned (I can't opine since I've never owned the older model). Sarah at Lensrentals said the following:

"The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM A1 is a definite upgrade from the previous version. Right out of the case you can tell the build quality is much stronger, with a solid, accurate focus ring. Optically, the image quality is similar in the center to the previous version, but the corners are much sharper and focusing is more accurate making it worth the price difference."

... while Roger Cicala said:

"Like a lot of people, I was hoping for a crop-sensor version of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 full-frame lens; an amazingly high-resolution optic. This lens isn’t that good optically. It’s a very nice lens with good resolution and excellent corner performance. If corner performance is important to you this lens is a significant upgrade. If you are more interested in center resolution, than optically it’s not better than the original.

However, I’d still consider this a worthwhile upgrade for a number of reasons. Build quality is far better. The new lens can be accurately focused manually, something that live-view shooters like myself found was difficult to do with the original."

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.

I'm not a big fan of superzooms either, but there are occasions where I think they can be useful... invaluable, even, so long as the limitations are understood and accepted. I actually bought my Sigma 18-300 long after I sold my DA18-270, and some time after I'd become well equipped with very good primes, the 17-50 f/2.8 HSM and HD DA55-300. It doesn't get a great deal of use... but when needed, it's very handy. Yes, it has many compromises, but as superzooms go, it's good. Centre performance is actually pretty awesome for the type of lens, and whilst the borders and corners fall well behind, it's more than usable in most situations.

The 17-50 f/2.8 HSM, though, is better than just "fine" - it's really very good indeed, at least in my opinion. It easily bests the DA*16-50, and is more-or-less comparable to the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, with a mix of those who prefer one or the other. The Sigma has a much flatter field, and the HSM is nice, since it's virtually silent. I understand the build quality of the Sigma is slightly better, which I can believe given that I own the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and, whilst it's one of my all-time favourite lenses, build quality doesn't quite match the Sigma.

Incidentally, contrast on all three of the lenses I mentioned is excellent. As for colours... I like them. I've heard one or two less-than-stellar opinions, but only a very few, and I can't for the life of me think why. Personal preferences, I guess.

I'm not trying to fly the flag for Sigma, here... Just offering another, different view for balance.

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.

Yes, absolutely. Actually, the 150-600 in particular would - I'm sure - have a solid market in K-mount if AF was reliable. I have the Tamron 150-600 (first generation) in Sony A-mount and it's a wonderful lens. The Sigma offerings are supposed to be better still.

Interestingly, I've read that AF problems on some of the Sigma lenses aren't unique to the K-mount variants. Apparently, a lot of folks shooting Canon weren't happy with AF on the 35mm f/1.4 Art and the 18-35 f/1.8 - improved somewhat by firmware upgrade, but not fully resolved...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 09-08-2019 at 02:39 PM.

[Rondec]

The 30mm f/1.4 Art is allegedly much improved over the version you owned (I can't opine since I've never owned the older model). Sarah at Lensrentals said the following:

"The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM A1 is a definite upgrade from the previous version. Right out of the case you can tell the build quality is much stronger, with a solid, accurate focus ring. Optically, the image quality is similar in the center to the previous version, but the corners are much sharper and focusing is more accurate making it worth the price difference."

... while Roger Cicala said:

"Like a lot of people, I was hoping for a crop-sensor version of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 full-frame lens; an amazingly high-resolution optic. This lens isn’t that good optically. It’s a very nice lens with good resolution and excellent corner performance. If corner performance is important to you this lens is a significant upgrade. If you are more interested in center resolution, than optically it’s not better than the original.

However, I’d still consider this a worthwhile upgrade for a number of reasons. Build quality is far better. The new lens can be accurately focused manually, something that live-view shooters like myself found was difficult to do with the original."

I'm not a big fan of superzooms either, but there are occasions where I think they can be useful... invaluable, even, so long as the limitations are understood and accepted. I actually bought my Sigma 18-300 long after I sold my DA18-270, and some time after I'd become well equipped with very good primes, the 17-50 f/2.8 HSM and HD DA55-300. It doesn't get a great deal of use... but when needed, it's very handy. Yes, it has many compromises, but as superzooms go, it's good. Centre performance is actually pretty awesome for the type of lens, and whilst the borders and corners fall well behind, it's more than usable in most situations.

The 17-50 f/2.8 HSM, though, is better than just "fine" - it's really very good indeed, at least in my opinion. It easily bests the DA*16-50, and is more-or-less comparable to the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, with a mix of those who prefer one or the other. The Sigma has a much flatter field, and the HSM is nice, since it's virtually silent. I understand the build quality of the Sigma is slightly better, which I can believe given that I own the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and, whilst it's one of my all-time favourite lenses, build quality doesn't quite match the Sigma.

Incidentally, contrast on all three of the lenses I mentioned is excellent. As for colours... I like them. I've heard one or two less-than-stellar opinions, but only a very few, and I can't for the life of me think why. Personal preferences, I guess.

I'm not trying to fly the flag for Sigma, here... Just offering another, different view for balance.



Yes, absolutely. Actually, the 150-600 in particular would - I'm sure - have a solid market in K-mount if AF was reliable. I have the Tamron 150-600 (first generation) in Sony A-mount and it's a wonderful lens. The Sigma offerings are supposed to be better still.

Interestingly, I've read that AF problems on some of the Sigma lenses aren't unique to the K-mount variants. Apparently, a lot of folks shooting Canon weren't happy with AF on the 35mm f/1.4 Art and the 18-35 f/1.8 - improved somewhat by firmware upgrade, but not fully resolved...

But you will admit that Sigma has come a long ways from the "Stigma" days where they produced cheap lenses that really weren't terribly well made. The real questions are (a) if Pentaxians have gotten over their biases against Sigmas enough to buy them over Pentax brand lenses (b) if they work well enough on K mount cameras to make people want them and (c) if the real quality lenses are available in K mount.

The Sigma 35 f1.4 art really did seem to sell pretty well. I chose to buy the Pentax 31 mm f1.8 as smaller and because I like the FA limiteds. The Sigma 18-35 f1.8 got good buzz initially and then folks like Digitalis showed up and really blasted Sigma over focus issues and Sigma's unwillingness to take care of decentering issues. Those sorts of reports really had a negative impact on Sigma sales, at least from Pentaxians who come here to the Forum.

Regardless, by all accounts, lenses like the 35, 50, and 85 art are excellent lenses with good sharpness. They probably would sell well to full frame users if they were available in the K mount. They just aren't, except for the 35mm f1.4.

[dstar]

Sigma drop support this statement not very clear a . Sigma has 6 y warranty for sigma product ,so they must repair or adjustment per law. They can stop created new lenses for Pentax this different story.
I email to Sigma and want receive clear response .So if I receive Sigma response I will post here will be .

[dstar]

Also I just look price new art lenses for Canon and Sony price very close to Original canon and Sony so will be buy plus need adapter

[rr1736]

Sadly Sigma has not been releasing any of their new lenses in K mount . I am have been a user of Sigma glass for a long time and I wish they would reconsider but I doubt they will. When I first decided on a DSLR I looked at lens availability and then Sigma release almost everything in K Mount. Perhaps one of the other manufactures may step up and release autofocus lenses in K mount

[BigMackCam]

But you will admit that Sigma has come a long ways from the "Stigma" days where they produced cheap lenses that really weren't terribly well made.

Oh, for sure. As part of some used kit bundles I've bought over the years, I've briefly owned a few older Sigma consumer zooms, and they weren't great. Sigma has definitely come a looooong way...

The real questions are (a) if Pentaxians have gotten over their biases against Sigmas enough to buy them over Pentax brand lenses (b) if they work well enough on K mount cameras to make people want them and (c) if the real quality lenses are available in K mount.

The Sigma 35 f1.4 art really did seem to sell pretty well. I chose to buy the Pentax 31 mm f1.8 as smaller and because I like the FA limiteds. The Sigma 18-35 f1.8 got good buzz initially and then folks like Digitalis showed up and really blasted Sigma over focus issues and Sigma's unwillingness to take care of decentering issues. Those sorts of reports really had a negative impact on Sigma sales, at least from Pentaxians who come here to the Forum.

Regardless, by all accounts, lenses like the 35, 50, and 85 art are excellent lenses with good sharpness. They probably would sell well to full frame users if they were available in the K mount. They just aren't, except for the 35mm f1.4.

I think across all the camera brands - Pentax included - many folks are willing to give any brand of lens the benefit of the doubt, regardless of history, if reviews and evidence suggest the balance of build quality, optical performance and price is right. On that last point, I generally feel third party lenses need to be priced more competitively than OEM equivalents if they're to sell well. My collection of glass is more varied and complete than it otherwise would be if I'd stuck rigidly to OEM lenses, simply based on what I can afford or justify, and I think that's true of many photographers. For example, I've long wanted the FA31, but simply couldn't justify the cost... but the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art fully satisfied my desire for a fast, decent lens with that field of view, at a price I was more than willing to pay.

If it weren't for the AF issues, the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 would be an incredible bargain... here in the UK, in Pentax mount, it's currently selling for GBP £625, but on the run up to Christmas last year, it could be had for between £500 and £550... For an 18-35mm lens with constant f/1.8 aperture, great optical performance and nice build quality, that's dirt cheap... except that the AF really does seem to have an awful reputation, especially on Pentax where no firmware update was ever made available. For some, though, the pricing is cheap enough to put up with such inconveniences... because, there's nothing else available in a zoom to compete. Imagine what a Pentax-branded 18-35 f/1.8 would cost, if such a lens were available

As for the primes you mention - and, indeed, the long zooms we previously discussed - I'm sure there'd be a market for them in K-mount if the AF were reliable. But it's a moot point, I suppose, given Sigma's withdrawal.

What I'd love to see happen - though I don't hold out any real hope - is that Ricoh would see Sigma's lack of K-mount support (and that of other lens manufacturers) as an opportunity to capitalise further and improve / expand upon the existing lens range at a faster rate. There's a market for lower and mid-priced, optically good lenses. They don't all have to be DA*, D FA* or Limited build quality... just solidly built, with good AF and strong optical performance.

[fs999]

If it weren't for the AF issues, the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 would be an incredible bargain... here in the UK, in Pentax mount, it's currently selling for GBP £625, but on the run up to Christmas last year, it could be had for between £500 and £550... For an 18-35mm lens with constant f/1.8 aperture, great optical performance and nice build quality, that's dirt cheap... except that the AF really does seem to have an awful reputation, especially on Pentax where no firmware update was ever made available. For some, though, the pricing is cheap enough to put up with such inconveniences... because, there's nothing else available in a zoom to compete. Imagine what a Pentax-branded 18-35 f/1.8 would cost, if such a lens were available

My 18-35 works great, no major AF problems, even in low light...

[Rondec]

Oh, for sure. As part of some used kit bundles I've bought over the years, I've briefly owned a few older Sigma consumer zooms, and they weren't great. Sigma has definitely come a looooong way...



I think across all the camera brands - Pentax included - many folks are willing to give any brand of lens the benefit of the doubt, regardless of history, if reviews and evidence suggest the balance of build quality, optical performance and price is right. On that last point, I generally feel third party lenses need to be priced more competitively than OEM equivalents if they're to sell well. My collection of glass is more varied and complete than it otherwise would be if I'd stuck rigidly to OEM lenses, simply based on what I can afford or justify, and I think that's true of many photographers. For example, I've long wanted the FA31, but simply couldn't justify the cost... but the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art fully satisfied my desire for a fast, decent lens with that field of view, at a price I was more than willing to pay.

If it weren't for the AF issues, the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 would be an incredible bargain... here in the UK, in Pentax mount, it's currently selling for GBP £625, but on the run up to Christmas last year, it could be had for between £500 and £550... For an 18-35mm lens with constant f/1.8 aperture, great optical performance and nice build quality, that's dirt cheap... except that the AF really does seem to have an awful reputation, especially on Pentax where no firmware update was ever made available. For some, though, the pricing is cheap enough to put up with such inconveniences... because, there's nothing else available in a zoom to compete. Imagine what a Pentax-branded 18-35 f/1.8 would cost, if such a lens were available

As for the primes you mention - and, indeed, the long zooms we previously discussed - I'm sure there'd be a market for them in K-mount if the AF were reliable. But it's a moot point, I suppose, given Sigma's withdrawal.

What I'd love to see happen - though I don't hold out any real hope - is that Ricoh would see Sigma's lack of K-mount support (and that of other lens manufacturers) as an opportunity to capitalise further and improve / expand upon the existing lens range at a faster rate. There's a market for lower and mid-priced, optically good lenses. They don't all have to be DA*, D FA* or Limited build quality... just solidly built, with good AF and strong optical performance.

I probably don't have much more to say except that I think that Sigma's ethos is pretty different from Pentax's, at least that's how it has been in the past. Sigma has made some really nice lenses, but they certainly aren't the tiny, flare resistant bundles that the DA limiteds are, for instance.

As old as the FA limiteds are, they have significantly more "buzz" around them as lenses to try than lenses like the Sigma 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.4 (which obviously would only be available used in k mount). There are pretty decent prices available on some of those older Pentax lenses too, which tends to level the playing field a bit. Overall, though, Pentax has a tiny section of a declining market. Even if 30 or 40 percent of Pentaxians purchased a Sigma lens, it still would be small sales compared to Canon and Nikon. That's the real reason they are dropping support.

[Serkevan]

I probably don't have much more to say except that I think that Sigma's ethos is pretty different from Pentax's, at least that's how it has been in the past. Sigma has made some really nice lenses, but they certainly aren't the tiny, flare resistant bundles that the DA limiteds are, for instance.

As old as the FA limiteds are, they have significantly more "buzz" around them as lenses to try than lenses like the Sigma 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.4 (which obviously would only be available used in k mount). There are pretty decent prices available on some of those older Pentax lenses too, which tends to level the playing field a bit. Overall, though, Pentax has a tiny section of a declining market. Even if 30 or 40 percent of Pentaxians purchased a Sigma lens, it still would be small sales compared to Canon and Nikon. That's the real reason they are dropping support.

Being a volume seller only works if you're flooding the market, and 2% of a niche hobby is not a financially sound idea.

[lsimpkins]

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...)

Yes, 17-50mm f2.8. Still wish they had made their 150-600mm available in K mount, but I do have some nice Pentax lenses, too.

[Chris Mak]

Yes, 17-50mm f2.8. Still wish they had made their 150-600mm available in K mount, but I do have some nice Pentax lenses, too.

Sigma not releasing their latest ...-600mm lenses, and not releasing their excellent 500mm f4 prime, in K-mount was a blow. At least from the perspective of wildlife shooters and birders. Pentax did and does not have the capacity to fill in these gaps themselves. Sony e.g. does, look at their new excellent 200-600mm f6.3 lens. Pentax really needed third party lens support, and still does.

[Mbaez]

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...)

Me, I've bought 4 new lenses from them, and was planning on getting the 30 Art.

[BigMackCam]

Me, I've bought 4 new lenses from them, and was planning on getting the 30 Art.

A really, really nice lens. I recommend it

[biz-engineer]

Sigma stops K-Mount support

Hello Sigma, Good bye Sigma. I've never owned one Sigma lens since I felt that the build quality of Sigma lenses was generally inferior to the one of OEM lenses. A few years back, before the Art lenses, some people damaged their DSLR when using a Sigma lens. I've had two Tamron lenses one I was very happy with (SP 17-50 2.8) and two others: SP 70-200 2.8 that was soft wide open and wouldn't focus in LV, and SP 28-75 2.8 that happened to work fine on apsc but was unsharp on one edge when i used it with the K1. Now having only Pentax glass, the quality is top. Also I've heard, the Sigma 30 1.4 and 18-35 1.8 would hit or miss focus randomly. Good bye Sigma , I will not miss you.

[btnapa]

Less options for Pentax users, but the selection was small anyways.

That is true but at least they offered something. Can't blame Sigma or Tamron or Tokina. If the market share is too small, the cost of development is hard to justify.

Yet another sign Pentax is being marginalized. We have best-of-class bodies and excellent selection of lenses but for a system that no one else is supporting. At least I am glad we finally have some support from Godox/Flashpoint. We also have lens support from lesser known players. All is not lost but the writing is on the wall. I wanna see what Pentax is going to do about all this. Maybe complete the lens line up? Put some serious video specs in the bodies? Introduce some mirrorless bodies? I don't know what it is going to take to make sure Pentax brand stays around.

Buying a camera these days is like buying a car. There are dizzying number of choices out there. All the brands are struggling with the same thing. How do you attract a new buyer.