[reh321]

Cross-licencing agreements for the existing achievements of interest to both entities and co-development agreements for the future are common. Believe me, I have advised on a lot of carve-outs in the last 25 years, this one would definitely not be one of the most complicated.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that Sigma has something that Ricoh wants??

[phoebus]

I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that Sigma has something that Ricoh wants??

I would say the opposite - Pentax lens coatings have long been better than Sigma's, you just have to take an into sun shot with a Sigma lens to know what I'm talking about. As for other 'Pentax' technology, I can't see much they would want. Plus Ricoh seem quietly content with their Pentax line.

The Sigma CEO stated in interviews a couple of years ago that their cameras were only because of an ancestors desire to have a camera line. They are a relatively small manufacturer, in a country with high employee costs. Being privately owned gives them the freedom to do what they choose, if they can afford it. I can't imagine for a moment they have the resources, inclination or opportunity to buy the Pentax portfolio from Ricoh.

It makes a good rumour for raffle points, but I believe it is a very long distance from reality...

[Kunzite]

I would say the opposite - Pentax lens coatings have long been better than Sigma's, you just have to take an into sun shot with a Sigma lens to know what I'm talking about.

If they want to use Pentax' coatings, they can simply license them.
There are many things to be done before buying part of a company. And anyway, it's a pointless discussion as we know it won't happen.

[Bertrand3000]

I would say the opposite - Pentax lens coatings have long been better than Sigma's, you just have to take an into sun shot with a Sigma lens to know what I'm talking about.

Indeed, much flare and ghosts. SMC is better. But I would add that Sigma also obviously lacks something like SP coating ; my lens (Sigma 10-20 F3.5) gets dirty much more quickly than any of my genuine Pentax lenses.

[MikeyBugs95]

Indeed, much flare and ghosts. SMC is better. But I would add that Sigma also obviously lacks something like SP coating ; my lens (Sigma 10-20 F3.5) gets dirty much more quickly than any of my genuine Pentax lenses.

Well isn't it also a lens that was developed before the Global Vision lines appeared? So of course what ever improvements came with the Sport, Art and Contemporary lines wouldn't have made it to the 10-20 3.5 EX. At least not until they remake that lens into a Global Vision lens.

[reh321]

I would say the opposite - Pentax lens coatings have long been better than Sigma's, you just have to take an into sun shot with a Sigma lens to know what I'm talking about. As for other 'Pentax' technology, I can't see much they would want. Plus Ricoh seem quietly content with their Pentax line.

The Sigma CEO stated in interviews a couple of years ago that their cameras were only because of an ancestors desire to have a camera line. They are a relatively small manufacturer, in a country with high employee costs. Being privately owned gives them the freedom to do what they choose, if they can afford it. I can't imagine for a moment they have the resources, inclination or opportunity to buy the Pentax portfolio from Ricoh.

It makes a good rumour for raffle points, but I believe it is a very long distance from reality...

"Sigma no longer making K-mount lenses" was news to some of us - and it matters to some of us, because the Sigma 10-20 is to some of us the best UWA we are willing to purchase for ourselves. Fortunately I purchased my K-mount lens several years ago, but that was worth a basic conversation regardless of any competition, even one that could get me a similar lens that I would never purchase for myself. I have to older version - with variable f-stop and uses screw-drive. I would rather have an internal motor, Pentax coatings, and WR, but this is what I could afford. The EF-mount version of that lens was good for some of us, also. It is too bad that Pentax hasn't made a non-starred version in that focal-length range, but the Sigma is what I can afford and I will continue to use it as long as I can press the shutter button.

[SSGGeezer]

"Sigma no longer making K-mount lenses" was news to some of us - and it matters to some of us, because the Sigma 10-20 is to some of us the best UWA we are willing to purchase for ourselves. Fortunately I purchased my K-mount lens several years ago, but that was worth a basic conversation regardless of any competition, even one that could get me a similar lens that I would never purchase for myself.

I have the older version on the way to my house right now. I will play with it and see if my UWA LBA is fulfilled by it and if not, save up for the Pentax DA* 11-18 or the DFA* 15-30 for my K-1. Other than being disappointed that Sigma ignored Pentax with their ery long telephoto lenses. I feel that in today's shrinking market, that it is not really a big deal. It isn't like they pay royalties on the reverse engineered software, right?

[Mistral75]

I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that Sigma has something that Ricoh wants??

No. I'm saying that, if

• Business A and Business B, owned by the same entity (Owner), share common achievements and are carrying out common developments (and possibly plan to carry out additional common developments in the future)
• Owner wants to sell a fully-functional Business B to Purchaser but keep Business A for its own use and keep it fully-functional too

then one of the possible ways is for Owner (in the name of Business A it keeps) and Purchaser (in the name of Business B it acquires) to cross-licence the common achievements of Business A and Business B to date and enter into co-development agreements mirroring the common developments carried out and/or identified by Business A and Business B at the date of the transfer of Business B to Purchaser.

In the case discussed above, Owner would be Ricoh, Business A would be the compact camera (GR, G900, WG) and 360° camera (Theta) business, Business B would be the Pentax business and Purchaser would hypothetically be Sigma.

[RobA_Oz]

If they want to use Pentax' coatings, they can simply license them.
There are many things to be done before buying part of a company. And anyway, it's a pointless discussion as we know it won't happen.

If I remember correctly, they chose to reverse-engineer the K-mount, rather than licence it. Did they do the same with other mounts? If so, history would suggest they most likely wouldn’t licence the coatings, either.

[reeftool]

I have a Sigma 17-70 and 150-500. The are both excellent lenses and I'm sad that Sigma is going to discontinue making lenses in K mount. It's never a good thing for a camera company when third party support goes away.

[clackers]

I have a Sigma 17-70 and 150-500. The are both excellent lenses and I'm sad that Sigma is going to discontinue making lenses in K mount. It's never a good thing for a camera company when third party support goes away.

Camera companies don't want third parties, they're rivals.

Canon even did some recent jiggery to stop non-Canon flashes working on some base models, IIRC.

[Mikesul]

Yes. Recent Sony FF cameras check to see if the battery is from a third party and if it is give a warning and, on some, turn off certain functions. Makes the user nervous.

[clackers]

Yes. Recent Sony FF cameras check to see if the battery is from a third party and if it is give a warning and, on some, turn off certain functions. Makes the user nervous.

My Canon G7X does that too.

We consumers love a so-called ecosystem of competing products for our platforms, the OEMs hate them, they don't want others to make money.

[luftfluss]

If I remember correctly, they chose to reverse-engineer the K-mount, rather than licence it. Did they do the same with other mounts? If so, history would suggest they most likely wouldn’t licence the coatings, either.

From what I remember, Sigma reverse-engineers for Canon and Nikon... and some of their DSLR lenses like the 18-35/1.8 and 35/1.4 do have some AF issues with those brands, just like with Pentax.

[Serkevan]

My Canon G7X does that too.

We consumers love a so-called ecosystem of competing products for our platforms, the OEMs hate them, they don't want others to make money.

The only reason why the OEMs "tolerate" the 3rd parties is because they more or less have to, from a legal point of view. As customers, choice is good because we can take what best fits our needs (or a cheaper option). As manufacturers, choice is bad... because we might choose the other product