Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-28-2016, 03:08 AM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,720
QuoteOriginally posted by tryphon4 Quote
I find this thread interesting because i own the same Sigma 70-200mm/2.8 HSM II.
Me too. Pls let us know how the lens performs on the K-1.

I will be very happy if it works normally. I've had no problems with it on the K-3/K-5/K-x.

04-28-2016, 04:06 AM   #32
Veteran Member
kp0c's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 721
QuoteOriginally posted by funktionsfrei Quote
Well, thanks for the participation. I wasn't aware of having stept right into a beehive when mentioning "Sigma" and "Pentax" in one posting.

The reason for me to use Sigma lenses is that Pentax had and/or has nothing similar on offer. Pentax just came out with their first fast 70-200; I got the offending 70-200 back in 2008 or 2009, because the K10D I then was using wasn't really a great low-light performer. Tamron's 70-200, being similarly fast, only works with screwdrive AF; for what reasons ever Tamron doesn't offer any kind of in-lens AF drive for Pentax. Thus the faster and less noisy Sigma lens was the only choice available.

Regarding rectilinear wide-angle lenses: The 8-16 is the widest APS-C lens on the market. Sigma's equivalent 12-24 is (or was?) the widest full-frame lens on the market. The widest full-frame lens Pentax offers is the new 15-30. The three millimetres difference are huge. I wouldn't want to miss these three millimetres. Pentax widest APS-C lens (besides the 10-17 fisheye, which is something completely different from a rectilinear wide-angle lens) is a 14mm lens.

Sorry; I really like Pentax' cameras (why on earth should I buy them instead?), but I'm underwhelmed by Pentax' zoom lens offerings. Primes, they make glorious ones. And mid-range zooms, like the 16-85, are excellent. But that's an APS-C lens (with severe vignetting on the K-1 on both ends).


Well, I try contacting Sigma for a statement on what their stance is on Pentax Full-Frame support. Maybe they've completely lost interest in the market; not entirely improbable, given that they've actively removed several lenses of their line-up like the already mentioned 12-24.




Pray tell, what other manufacturers beside Pentax offer K-bajonet lenses? We're talking about AF zoom lenses here, aren't we?

---------- Post added 04-27-16 at 11:12 PM ----------

Oh, by the way, the "freeze" problem is not a power problem - the battery I've used was fully charged.
QuoteOriginally posted by funktionsfrei Quote
Pentax widest APS-C lens (besides the 10-17 fisheye, which is something completely different from a rectilinear wide-angle lens) is a 14mm lens.
On the current line up, Pentax makes a well regarded APS-C 12-24mm lens. Not that it matters much for your full frame wide angle lens concern, but you seemed to be unaware of such lens in your comments when you criticized Pentax's wide angle lens offering.
04-28-2016, 07:47 AM - 2 Likes   #33
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,090
QuoteOriginally posted by funktionsfrei Quote
I wasn't aware of having stept right into a beehive when mentioning "Sigma" and "Pentax" in one posting.
First, congratulations on your new K-1!

Second, too bad that you are having an issue with your Sigma 70-200/2.8. The K-1 should never freeze under any circumstance, independently where the ultimate cause is. If that happens in conjunction with equipment that works fine with other Pentax cameras, it is just a sign of a lack of robustness. There are no two ways about it.

Third, it is not your fault that some people find the need to lash out against a third-party manufacturer. If Pentax had offered a lens with similar specifications and a similar value for money prospect, you would have bought it, right?

The notion that Sigma is taking "shortcuts" or does things "cheaply" is ridiculous. The vast majority of their products work just fine with original equipment but now and then orginal equipment manufacturers find the need to throw a spanner in the works and change the protocol slightly, even when no additional functionality is added. Just take the slightly altered hot-shoe of the Nikon D750 which makes a lot of useful third-party equipment useless or a lot harder to use and even creates incompatibility with some of Nikon's own equipment! This incident clearly did not expose third-party shortcuts, but very clearly was an attempt to persuade customers to stick to Nikon products.

Also, I wonder to what extent people who insinuate illegal behaviour on Sigma's part have checked when the respective K-mount patents expired. Who can actually prove that Sigma is doing something sleezy? And if it costs Pentax money (rather than helping to complete their own rather incomplete lens line-up), why aren't they suing? Nikon has sued Sigma for an alleged infringement on their stabilization technology. Why isn't Pentax suing Sigma, if the use of their very, very old technology is illegal?

I hope Sigma can sort the problem for you. Sigma has responded very well in the past to firmware incompatibilities and my experiences with Sigma service have all been extremely positive. The only problem I could foresee that your lens model does not exist in large enough numbers to justify the development of an updated firmware.

Let's all hope that the introduction of the K-1 will mark the beginning of more demand for K-mount lenses again. If production of K-mount lenses becomes financially viable for third-party manufacturers again, perhaps we can get more choice from Sigma again, and regain the support from Tamron, Zeiss, Voigtlaender, and Tokina.
04-28-2016, 08:21 AM   #34
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,750
I'm confused by the response above. I never saw anyone insinuate legal misconduct by Sigma. If I missed that whoops!

Reverse engineering is typically permitted. And reversing a protocol without outright copying means that subtle miscues can occur that can cause strange behaviors, but most of the time things work.

04-28-2016, 08:50 AM   #35
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,090
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
I never saw anyone insinuate legal misconduct by Sigma.
The insinuation is that Sigma avoids paying licensing fees.

If the use of some technology requires a licence (we do not know whether this is currently true for the very old K-mount specifications we are talking about here) then, to the best of my knowledge, you cannot legally circumvent the payment of a licensing fee simply by doing your own-reverse engineering. One would still be infringing on patents.

There are certainly examples for technologies where licensing fees / royalties are enforced and one cannot legally escape such enforcement by just finding one's own way of implementing the functionality.

I'd ask where you get the idea from that "reverse engineering is typically permitted", but I'm not that interested in the legal side of things. I just wanted to object to allegations / insinuations that are most likely unwarranted.
04-28-2016, 09:02 AM - 1 Like   #36
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 128
QuoteOriginally posted by funktionsfrei Quote
Well, thanks for all the tips and hints. I clearly wasn't aware of Sigma's somewhat checkered compatibility history, maybe due to pure luck on my side.

Thanks to "disasterfilm", that's an avenue I'll check. No, the lens was never serviced, and yes, LV focusing on the K-5 was lousy at best (and here enters my ignorance, I plainly didn't use LV that much until now, until I've had a K-1 in hands somewhen a month ago, where I noticed that LV could work pretty well). So that's not a mediocre LV AF, but a [expletive omitted] lens compatibility issue.
I'm already curious on Sigma's reaction to that.
For me, the symptoms of firmware problems on the HSM II with the K-5iis weren't mediocre autofocus. It wouldn't focus at all. In live view it would rip through the focus range twice then return to minimum focusing distance, with the AF square blinking red to indicate lack of lock. Regardless of availability of light, subject, and distance, it did the same thing.

If you can wait about a week, I'll know for sure whether the firmware update sidesteps the issues that you're having.

We're all in fact-finding mode, and for me part of the joy of a brand new camera format is going to be the process of discovery. It was uplifting when we started to hear that the K-1 autofocus engine has improved from its predecessors. It's disheartening to hear that things may not work flawlessly at the onset... especially for a FF feature lens like a 70-200 f/2,8. And if the camera isn't even functional - manual focusing is out of question - all the more cause for alarm.

In terms of frustration, I'm going to choose to be calm and patient about this. I've got a bag full of Sigma lenses, and my short recent dealings with their customer service have been very smooth and positive. They took great care of me before, during, and after that firmware update, and I'm sure they're called into action to respond to these new issues. They've treated me very well as a customer, so I'd like to return that grace to them now that they're in a tough situation.
04-28-2016, 03:47 PM   #37
Pentaxian
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,396
Take it from someone who has repaired many Sigmas (just got done with an EX DG 100mm f/2.8 macro, as a matter of fact), they absolutely do cut corners.

It's not meant as a slam on them to mention this. It's a business strategy that they adopted for very logical reasons and one that ultimately got them to the successful place they are now, but to deny it because one thinks it is some kind of personal slight against Sigma owners to mention the tradeoffs involved is foolish.

Heck, I have 7 or 8 Sigma lenses on my shelf right now. But I'm also willing to recognize that there is a reason they can undercut the OEMs by hundreds or thousands of dollars on a similarly specced (or even higher specced) lens. The money goes into the optics, not into the supporting hardware and software.



QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote

The notion that Sigma is taking "shortcuts" or does things "cheaply" is ridiculous. .


---------- Post added 04-28-16 at 04:00 PM ----------

Reverse engineering a communications protocol is perfectly legal under both U.S. and Japanese law , especially considering that Sigma and Pentax are not in contractual privity with each other (in fact, the DMCA expressly allows reverse engineering for interoperability purposes). If Pentax or any other OEM were real jerks, they could include a license agreement with the camera that forbade unlicensed lenses and disabled the camera if they were used, but that would make no business sense.

Now if they were to copy the firmware directly from Pentax lenses it would be a completely different story, or if Pentax installed encryption on the commuications chips and Sigma cracked the encryption to enable it to communicate it would likewise be illegal under the DMCA.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Sigma is a good actor when it comes to IP. Just a couple years ago, Nikon extracted a big settlement from them for blatantly infringing on their stabilization technology.


QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
The insinuation is that Sigma avoids paying licensing fees.

If the use of some technology requires a licence (we do not know whether this is currently true for the very old K-mount specifications we are talking about here) then, to the best of my knowledge, you cannot legally circumvent the payment of a licensing fee simply by doing your own-reverse engineering. One would still be infringing on patents.

There are certainly examples for technologies where licensing fees / royalties are enforced and one cannot legally escape such enforcement by just finding one's own way of implementing the functionality.

I'd ask where you get the idea from that "reverse engineering is typically permitted", but I'm not that interested in the legal side of things. I just wanted to object to allegations / insinuations that are most likely unwarranted.
04-28-2016, 06:22 PM   #38
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,090
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
Take it from someone who has repaired many Sigmas (just got done with an EX DG 100mm f/2.8 macro, as a matter of fact), they absolutely do cut corners.
Two comments and then I can hopefully stay away from this discussion:
  1. One has to distinguish between the old Sigma which released pretty terrible lenses at very low prices and the new Sigma which is competing with OEMs and sometimes even surpasses them. There is no Sigma 100mm macro (perhaps you meant the 105mm) so I don't know what lens you are talking about. The fact that you had to repair one does not say a lot either. Lenses develop faults, it happens. Even FA Limiteds can fall apart in a user's hand due to inappropriate thread-locking of screws. It happened. More than once.
  2. Some corner cutting is normal. It is called engineering. The problem starts when people jump at a manufacturer with preconceived ideas and unproven hypotheses. All my Sigma lenses have been exemplary in their reliability and performance. The SDM (Sudden Death Motor) issue, on the other hand, is a Pentax phenomenon, not a Sigma phenomenon.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that Sigma settled for "good enough" with the implementation of the firmware for the 70-200, having had no reason to believe that it would become a camera freezer one day in the future. The fact that Sigma could have done more pre-emptively or may have even dropped the ball to some extent does not prove that Sigma is a shoddy company or that any buyer choosing third-party equipment ought to expect this kind of stuff to happen.

None of us know whether the change in behaviour of the K-1 compared to previous Pentax DSLR with respect to the Sigma 70-200/2.8 was really warranted due to the need to support new functionality. I don't think we have heard of respective improvements to the AF system and many people frequently overstate the role of a lens in AF or even freezing a camera. The lens does not contain any "AF algorithms", nor does it assume any kind of control. I'm not saying Pentax gratuitously changed the protocol a bit to try and break some third-party lenses and I'm not saying Sigma did everything they could have done to avoid the problem at hand. None of us should be jumping to conclusions.

What everyone should be agreeing on is that the camera should not freeze, no matter what (excluding entirely unreasonable power drains, which we can probably exclude in this case). Perhaps someday a genuine Pentax lens develops an intermittent contact problem, leading to a similar communication problem. That should not freeze the camera either.

04-29-2016, 01:10 PM   #39
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Drome, France
Posts: 93
I encounter the same issue: my K-1 and my Sigma 70-200/2.8 Macro II do not work together.
The focus is erratic, the lens causes a freezing of the K-1 when I want to switch it off.

Bad news.
04-29-2016, 02:34 PM   #40
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 122
Original Poster
A small addendum to the list of Sigma lenses I've tested

10-20/4-5.6 DC (screwdrive AF) - works

In FF mode there's severe vignetting on the shorter end and less vignetting on the longer end, from 14mm on it's not so bad.
04-29-2016, 03:45 PM   #41
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,840
QuoteOriginally posted by tryphon4 Quote
I encounter the same issue: my K-1 and my Sigma 70-200/2.8 Macro II do not work together.
The focus is erratic, the lens causes a freezing of the K-1 when I want to switch it off.

Bad news.


Yes, very bad news. Several members on this site indicated intent to buy this lens in advance of a K-1 purchase. Sorry you got caught up short. Is it usable for manual focus?

I am curious as to how your lens identifies itself in the EXIF. There are two variants in this regard. The first identifies itself as "8 16" and is displayed with no confusion as Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II or something similar. The second identifies as "8 255", a code shared in common with several other Sigma lenses.
04-29-2016, 03:51 PM   #42
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,840
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
The lens does not contain any "AF algorithms", nor does it assume any kind of control.
It controls itself* in response to body commands and reports its state back to the body. If a value is out of range or inappropriate in type or timing, the camera might be thrown into an infinite control loop with the lens or become deadlocked waiting for a confirmation flag that never comes.


Steve

* Good indication of this might be that recently-released Sigma lenses may have their AF calibration fine-tuned using the Sigma USB Dock device.

Last edited by stevebrot; 04-29-2016 at 03:56 PM.
04-30-2016, 02:04 AM   #43
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 122
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
s it usable for manual focus?
The lens I've described makes the camera freeze immediately upon being attached. So it can be used as a rather heavy body cap only.

Oh, and yes, it's a "8 255" lens. Exiftool (and Lightoom) correctly identifies it as "Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II".


I'm trying to get in contact with Sigma on that.
04-30-2016, 04:42 AM   #44
mee
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,662
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Two comments and then I can hopefully stay away from this discussion:
  1. One has to distinguish between the old Sigma which released pretty terrible lenses at very low prices and the new Sigma which is competing with OEMs and sometimes even surpasses them. There is no Sigma 100mm macro (perhaps you meant the 105mm) so I don't know what lens you are talking about. The fact that you had to repair one does not say a lot either. Lenses develop faults, it happens. Even FA Limiteds can fall apart in a user's hand due to inappropriate thread-locking of screws. It happened. More than once.
  2. Some corner cutting is normal. It is called engineering. The problem starts when people jump at a manufacturer with preconceived ideas and unproven hypotheses. All my Sigma lenses have been exemplary in their reliability and performance. The SDM (Sudden Death Motor) issue, on the other hand, is a Pentax phenomenon, not a Sigma phenomenon.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that Sigma settled for "good enough" with the implementation of the firmware for the 70-200, having had no reason to believe that it would become a camera freezer one day in the future. The fact that Sigma could have done more pre-emptively or may have even dropped the ball to some extent does not prove that Sigma is a shoddy company or that any buyer choosing third-party equipment ought to expect this kind of stuff to happen.

None of us know whether the change in behaviour of the K-1 compared to previous Pentax DSLR with respect to the Sigma 70-200/2.8 was really warranted due to the need to support new functionality. I don't think we have heard of respective improvements to the AF system and many people frequently overstate the role of a lens in AF or even freezing a camera. The lens does not contain any "AF algorithms", nor does it assume any kind of control. I'm not saying Pentax gratuitously changed the protocol a bit to try and break some third-party lenses and I'm not saying Sigma did everything they could have done to avoid the problem at hand. None of us should be jumping to conclusions.

What everyone should be agreeing on is that the camera should not freeze, no matter what (excluding entirely unreasonable power drains, which we can probably exclude in this case). Perhaps someday a genuine Pentax lens develops an intermittent contact problem, leading to a similar communication problem. That should not freeze the camera either.
You're making a mountain out of a molehill by reading into things that are not there and then responding in book form supporting your claims.

Who said Sigma was a shoddy company? dc said they cut corners.. I'm pretty sure they do. That doesn't mean the company is shoddy nor do I discern he is saying that from his statements. He seems to make effort to avoid the response you provided.

We are all agreeing the camera should not freeze. However, with a third party lens, the ball is in the third party's court to make it work since they reverse engineer them to function with Pentax (and every other brand). Pentax has no obligation to make it work.

Lens purchases are the big item for DSLR manufacturers.. the body is the loss leader to get you in the system to buy the pricey lenses. Do you really think they are going to work hard to cut their noses off by spending resources to get 3rd party lenses to function better? No no.. this is a Sigma issue and Sigma needs to address it.

In short, When you buy any third party item, there is NO guarantee of support from the 1st party with the use of the 3rd party item in conjunction with 1st party items. IF they are gracious enough to look at 3rd party functionality, then GREAT. But there is no requirement for them to do so.

If you want that level of support, buy 1st party lenses for the 1st party body. (That is, buy Pentax branded lenses)

Last edited by mee; 04-30-2016 at 06:07 AM.
04-30-2016, 07:53 AM   #45
Loyal Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,517
This is very troubling to me.....my most used lens is my Bigma 50-500 HSM OS...and if it doesn't work on my K1 I will have to question the need for the K1?

Well over 90% of what I shoot is with this lens. I am crossing my fingers and hoping for the best.

Regards!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
af, aps-c, business, camera, dg, distance, dslr, fees, full frame, full-frame, hsm, k-1, k-1 3rd-party lens, k1, lens, lenses, market, mine, pentax, pentax k-1, scale, sigma, technology, version
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K/M/A 3rd Party, 1 Zoom, 5 Primes, 3 TCs, 3 Ext. Tube(s), Sigma, Vivitar, Adaptall-2 MightyMike Sold Items 56 12-27-2015 10:34 AM
For Sale - Sold: K/M/A 3rd Party, 3 Zooms, 4 Primes, 2 TCs, Series 1, Sigma, Ricoh, Kiron, Lenbaby MightyMike Sold Items 18 04-07-2015 05:27 PM
K-50 with 3rd party zoom lens rumplestiltskin Pentax K-30 & K-50 5 01-13-2014 10:14 AM
K-X and 3rd party lens - need help YodaRules Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 3 03-30-2013 11:04 AM
3rd party lens compatibility with K7 Rush Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 08-21-2010 02:11 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:27 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top