[stevebrot]

It's not about the mount, it's about the plastic above it.

That ain't plastic.

At least it better not be. The buyers are paying for magnesium alloy.


Steve

[Parallax]

See who would be happy then.

Pentax would be.

I am pretty sure Pentax needs Sigma more than Sigma needs Pentax.

Why? Pentax doesn't make money when people buy a Sigma lens.

Sigma doesn't make a lot of money with Pentax, hence they are not releasing most of their lenses for K-mount.

They won't make any money on K mount if they don't produce any.

[grahamcoad]

What a lot of old fuss!!

I have been using Sigma 12-24mm. 24-70mm and 150-500mm on my K-1 and yes, I have the scratch!!

It's horizontal, in the black finish, above the lens mount and underneath the Pentax logo AND IT IS MINUTE, TINY, THIN AND FAINT.

I am not the slightest bit concerned about it.

[FantasticMrFox]

That ain't plastic.

At least it better not be. The buyers are paying for magnesium alloy.

Good catch

Pentax would be.Why? Pentax doesn't make money when people buy a Sigma lens.

And some people won't switch if they can't get the Sigma and Tamron lenses they have learnt to appreciate with their Canon/Nikon gear.

[normhead]

People who buy from a company that uses reverse engineering instead of paying licensing fees, don't have much of a leg to stand on. Pentax didn't earn a cent from that lens. They are under no obligation to support it.

[tariq]

Pentax would be.Why? Pentax doesn't make money when people buy a Sigma lens.

In some cases they do. I know a few folks who have considered buying the K-1 because Sigma offers the Art 35/1.4 in Pentax mount. There is not a great Pentax offering in a 35/1.4 and if that is ones main focal length of choice, the availability of the Sigma option most certainly could make Pentax some $$ via the sell of a K-1 (and possibly other Pentax lenses and future bodies down the road thereafter).

[Quartermaster James]

Does Sigma actually make any lenses for K-mount? Seems that they make mostly Canikon lenses and begrudgingly slap a K-mount on a few. Why else would we have to pay the same for a K-mount lens without stabilization as costs a Canikon with it? Sigma has been ringing the death knell for Pentax a long time.

[D1N0]

Sigma are the ones having more pull in this situation. Sigma doesn't make a lot of money with Pentax, hence they are not releasing most of their lenses for K-mount. But the Sigma 'Art' series is universally recognised as probably the best FF prime lens line in existence, and certainly the best bang for the buck. People buy them like sliced bread, and them being not available for Pentax is a drawback.

I am pretty sure Pentax needs Sigma more than Sigma needs Pentax.

I think you need Sigma more than Pentax.

[Parallax]

the availability of the Sigma option mount certainly could make Pentax some $$ via the sell of a K-1 (and possibly other Pentax lenses and future bodies down the road thereafter).

Okay, but how much will they lose due to people buying the Sigma lenses instead of Pentax lenses?

[FantasticMrFox]

I think you need Sigma more than Pentax.

Makes sense, considering out of my five lenses one is a Sigma and four are Pentax

[D1N0]

Makes sense, considering out of my five lenses one is a Sigma and four are Pentax

Maybe you should demand from sigma to remount your Pentax lenses (and of course the sigma) to your brand of choice. See how they react.

[stevebrot]

Does Sigma actually make any lenses for K-mount? Seems that they make mostly Canikon lenses and begrudgingly slap a K-mount on a few. Why else would we have to pay the same for a K-mount lens without stabilization as costs a Canikon with it? Sigma has been ringing the death knell for Pentax a long time. And now, with the advent of the K-1, they are caught with their pants down.

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. Example: If you bought a lens in Canon EF that was also available in Pentax K and you later switch from Canon to Pentax, Sigma offers to change the lens over to Pentax K for a fee. That being said, whether they sell a lens in a particular mount depends on economics and cost to manufacture. For example, Sigma has complained that the KAF2 mount requires more care in manufacture due to the aperture control implementation. Nikon presents similar manufacturing challenges, but sales volume makes up for the trouble. K-mount sales volume is a bit less spectacular and less worthy of the resources to make/sell (poor ROI).

Another consideration is projected penetration where a market segment is contested. Up until recently Sigma sold their 70-200/2.8 in K-mount where it was considered to be the upscale and better-performing competition to the Tamron product. Judging from posts on this site, that lens has seen reasonable sales success among Pentaxians willing to spend a bit (quite a bit) more money. About the same time that Pentax confirmed FF camera development as well as a 70-200 lens to complement the camera, Sigma pulled its offering from the market knowing that they would likely see a sales drop of at least 30% with release of the new lens. Will they offer their 70-200/2.8 again? I guess it depends on the strength of the K-mount FF market going forward.


Steve

[FantasticMrFox]

Maybe you should demand from sigma to remount your Pentax lenses (and of course the sigma) to your brand of choice. See how they react.

Maybe you should react more maturely to criticism of a commercial brand you are not related to?

[Quartermaster James]

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. Example: If you bought a lens in Canon EF that was also available in Pentax K and you later switch from Canon to Pentax, Sigma offers to change the lens over to Pentax K for a fee. That being said, whether they sell a lens in a particular mount depends on economics and cost to manufacture. For example, Sigma has complained that the KAF2 mount requires more care in manufacture due to the aperture control implementation. Nikon presents similar manufacturing challenges, but sales volume makes up for the trouble. K-mount sales volume is a bit less spectacular and less worthy of the resources to make/sell (poor ROI).

Another consideration is projected penetration where a market segment is contested. Up until recently Sigma sold their 70-200/2.8 in K-mount where it was considered to be the upscale and better-performing competition to the Tamron product. Judging from posts on this site, that lens has seen reasonable sales success among Pentaxians. About the same time that Pentax confirmed FF camera development as well as a 70-200 lens to complement the camera, Sigma pulled its offering from the market knowing that they would likely see a sales drop of at least 30% with release of the new lens. Will they offer their 70-200/2.8 again? I guess it depends on the strength of the K-mount FF market going forward.


Steve

Aw, shucks! You got me quoted before I deleted the pants line.

Anyway, thanks for the reply!

[tariq]

Okay, but how much will they lose due to people buying the Sigma lenses instead of Pentax lenses?

I have no idea. I do know one of the major knocks against the K-1 I have heard from non-Pentax users is the lack of super high resolving, fast primes. Sigma seems to have that covered with the Art line. Pentax really offers nothing at 1.4. I do suspect we might eventually see Pentax branded versions of the newer Tamron primes, though they are not 1.4's like the Art line. As good as the FA Limited's are, they do show their age with regard to CA, aberrations and sharpness until stopped down a bit - and, of course, they are not 1.4's nor do they have internal, modern AF.