[Rupert]

People have even covered their cameras with dust and dirt!! Or shown themselves using their cameras near sea-spray!! Without using UV filters either !! All those people need to be banned.

Nah...they don't need to be banned, they just take their cameras to the car wash and use that high pressure magic wand to clean them up!


I love a little humor to start off my mornings.....this is currently the funniest thread on the Forum...gotta love it! Can't wait until someone discovers that that tiny scratch causes cancer in rats!

Regards!

---

Last edited by Rupert; 05-13-2016 at 05:50 AM.

[VoiceOfReason]

I am the subject of Rupert's last pic!

If you look like this I'd have to say teh surgeons did a wonderful job:

[RobA_Oz]

If you look like this I'd have to say teh surgeons did a wonderful job:

A little too much viewfinder overhang, and no flash…

[Balticbelle]

Ladies and gentlemen,
If we stop and think for a minute... It might be possible to dress the offending portion of this ring with an appropriate miniature file capable of cutting the material in a small amount of time. If the adjacent areas are masked appropriately the fine adjustment which is probably no longer than two centimeters could avoid having to send the lens back to Sigma. It is also likely that since the mount is silver in color, that no one would ever know and the K1 would not be damaged in the future. Just a thought, not advice.


Regards,
Balticbelle

[Quartermaster James]

Ladies and gentlemen,
If we stop and think for a minute... It might be possible to dress the offending portion of this ring with an appropriate miniature file capable of cutting the material in a small amount of time. If the adjacent areas are masked appropriately the fine adjustment which is probably no longer than two centimeters could avoid having to send the lens back to Sigma. It is also likely that since the mount is silver in color, that no one would ever know and the K1 would not be damaged in the future. Just a thought, not advice.


Regards,
Balticbelle

Aren't the silver color bits usually plated brass?

Also, I hope we're only taking a couple of millimeters off and not centimeters!

[Balticbelle]

Yes you are probably right. If you look back at some of the included images regarding the no go situation, you will find that the lens mount has a chamfered edge which is the offending party. If you think about how many degrees you turn a lens to mount it, you would have to dress that edge for only the part that interferes when mounting the lens. I doubt that a lot of thickness would have to be removed to clear the misfit.


Regards, Balticbelle

[dakight]

Nah...they don't need to be banned, they just take their cameras to the car wash and use that high pressure magic wand to clean them up!


I love a little humor to start off my mornings.....this is currently the funniest thread on the Forum...gotta love it! Can't wait until someone discovers that that tiny scratch causes cancer in rats!

Regards!

Or squirrels...

---------- Post added 05-13-16 at 08:24 PM ----------

A little too much viewfinder overhang, and no flash…

But the white balance is spot on.

[funktionsfrei]

It might be possible to dress the offending portion of this ring with an appropriate miniature file capable of cutting the material in a small amount of time. If the adjacent areas are masked appropriately the fine adjustment which is probably no longer than two centimeters could avoid having to send the lens back to Sigma. It is also likely that since the mount is silver in color, that no one would ever know

No good idea, besides your mixup of millimetres and centimetres.

First, the offending ring is made from plated brass. Once the plating is removed (due to wear and tear or due to other mechanical reasons), the brass will be visible.

Second, except for the most adept file handlers, this will have some kind of 3rd-world-hack feeling. Ugly scratches and dents. Should you ever think about selling a lens that looks as if somebody held a file to it's bayonet ring - forget it.

Third, even with most careful application of masking tape, it's close to impossible to hinder small metal flakes to fall in places where they don't belong.

No, don't do this at home, and don't do this in your workshop, should you happen to have one.

A way to handle this would be removing the ring from the lens and fitting it to a lathe, but this would need some extra effort just to fix it precisely in plane. Your run-of-the-mill three-jaw chuck won't be the perfect tool for the job.

And even then, the first two points would still be valid - visible (and oxidizing brass) and a klunky "fumbled with in an inappropriate way"-feeling for a precision optical instrument.

Nah. Don't. Let's wait for details on what Sigma wants for replacing that ring with a modified ring. That's the only way to let these lenses keep some of their value intact.

[Bengan]

I was watching this review https://www.facebook.com/digidirect/videos/1166161016761291 of the K-1 and realized that the guy had a Sigma 50 /1.4 mounted. 1 min 15 sec into the review he removes the lens and there is the down to metal scratch/mark clearly visible.

[Beerduck]

There is another optical piece to add, APO TELE CONVERTER 1.4x EX DG. It is scatching my K-1 body.

[awaldram]

They make a generic lens body adaptable to multiple platforms. So, the short answer is that they make K-mount the same as they make Nikon F and Canon EF. They even provide a mount change service.

Steve

Which probably led to this incompatibility

What is the diameter of the largest mount supported by Sigma in 'mount change' lens ?

[bxf]

Yes, they should. I don't understand what you find so preposterous about it. They know their customers will mount third party lenses, so they should make sure it works.

I must disagree.

Although it is correct to say that Pentax may lose some customers by not ensuring that Sigma lenses operate correctly, it is not Ricoh's responsibility.

If a company markets product S as being compatible with product P, it is that company's responsibility to ensure that the product is in fact compatible. If old P items still work on a new body, but S items do not, then clearly the compatibility is not 100%.

[dakight]

Let me get this straight... A third party copies a product which then turns out to be incompatible with a later version of the product and it is somehow the first party's fault? The fact is that of all the K-mount lenses extant, only the reverse engineered, unlicensed Sigma has an issue and Ricoh/Pentax is to blame? Give me a break! Now if Sigma were paying a license fee and producing product to spec in accordance with that license there might be a valid argument but as it is Sigma just got burned and their response to the issue proves that they know it.

[RockvilleBob]

Is this a Pentax problem? To me it is a no and yes answer. No it is not Pentax's problem in the "legal" sense but it is a Pentax problem since Sigma produces many lenses that fill the gap in the Pentax lens lineup. So Pentax suffers when new customers look to buy Pentax and a leading supplier of third party lenses, with offerings that plug many Pentax gaps, issues a warning about compatibility with the Pentax K1. In terms of sales I am guessing Pentax users who want a full frame camera will get the K1 with this issue unresolved. In terms of attracting new customers my guess is that this issue is more damaging to Pentax than to Sigma. I sense this may be an unfortunate and unintended consequence of an angular design by Pentax.

[Dave L]

Is this a Pentax problem? To me it is a no and yes answer. No it is not Pentax's problem in the "legal" sense but it is a Pentax problem since Sigma produces many lenses that fill the gap in the Pentax lens lineup. So Pentax suffers when new customers look to buy Pentax and a leading supplier of third party lenses, with offerings that plug many Pentax gaps, issues a warning about compatibility with the Pentax K1. In terms of sales I am guessing Pentax users who want a full frame camera will get the K1 with this issue unresolved. In terms of attracting new customers my guess is that this issue is more damaging to Pentax than to Sigma. I sense this may be an unfortunate and unintended consequence of an angular design by Pentax.

But there has been an announced fix by Sigma - so everyone will know it's Sigma's fault... and the fix means that the problem is temporary anyway. I can't really see this harming Pentax sales significantly.