[Na Horuk]

The only reason why Pentax should have thought about accommodating Sigma is because Sigma is, for better or worse, filling up the holes in the Pentax lineup. And has been for a while. These Sigma lenses are not coming out next month, but they were here before the K-1. And they are widely used. Sure, Ricoh could say they don't care, if they would have brought a complete lineup out, preferably before the actual camera hit the shelves. Since that was not possible, adding just 2-4mm clearance could have been thought about. Maybe it even was? I still wonder about the background behind this whole issue. It seems like such a small thing, not a drastic change to the camera. But eh, at least the warning is out and there is a solution.

[Parallax]

I actually bought into Pentax because several of the lenses I wanted were offered by Sigma.

I don't remember Sigma ever producing a lens exclusively in Pentax mount. Weren't those lenses also offered in Nikon and Cannon mount? Your statement confuses me a bit.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here. As I read it you bought a Pentax because you hoped they would someday make a FF so you could use Sigma lenses on the not yet produced FF. Lenses that could be had in Cannon and Nikon mount for their already in existence FFs.

[csa]

Sigma Announces Lens Compatibility Issues with K-1 - Third-Party Announcements | PentaxForums.com

In case some of you new K1 owners missed this.

[dfp771]

So I put the 35 A under some goooood lighting, and I unfortunately have to retract my previous statements. I can see the interference they are talking about, which isn't where I was even looking initially. There is also a slight rub in the body. That being said, it's not at a level to stop me from using the lens just yet. I'm guessing the repair for this will be machining a sharper edge angle of the mount by a hair. Picture attached. You probably need to zoom in a bit.
.

ShiftR,
I have just received my K-1 and was using it with the 35 Art I bought for it. I can see the lens mount flange clearance issue you are talking about. However, with my lens/camera combo, there is no scuff mark and I can see a tiny space between the camera body and the lens beveled area. It clears my new camera, but just by a whisker. I am going to continue to use the Sigma. I can see how, by mounting and un-mounting the lens, if you don't hold the lens square, it might slightly scuff the body. I'm not going to worry about it.

[dreyes]

I don't have a K-1, but I was really excited to eventually try my sigma 85 on it if and when I eventually save up to get the K-1. Hopefully by the time I could get the K-1, sigma's repair for this issue is already up and running.

[VoiceOfReason]

Confirmed, no scratch on mine.

[monochrome]

It appears to me the bulk of the people who believe Pentax erred are the same people who have a considerable capital investment in the offending Sigma lenses, which is perfectly understandable. If I were in the position I'd have that sinking feeling in my stomach, too.

Thankfully, Sigma has responded quickly to the situation, publishing an informational notice to consumers and offering to 'repair' their non-compliant lenses. Interestingly, so far it appears only Sigma has offered a figurative mea culpa.

Q.E.D.

[Jake21209]

Before everyone runs around with their on fire, you need to read the complete document. "We have found that some SIGMA interchangeable lenses for Pentax mount could leave a small scratch on part of the camera body when they are attached to the PENTAX K-1.We are planning to provide a repair service for this issue. That being said, it would be best to either try an existing lens on the list and see if it does in-fact leave a small scratch on the camera body. Most of the Pentax DSLR bodies are built like the provable battle tank and a small scratch can easily be covered with a small dab of paint if you so desire.

I have both a SIGMA 180 macro and the notorious 70 -200 telephoto and while I do not, at this time, have a K-1, it is on my prime list for a purchase this summer. My K-5 has a scratch on the body when I fell into the Little Gun Powder river 3 years ago and came in personal contact with a rather large rock. The K-5 has a small scratch and I was to worse for ware. It has not dimmed my use of the K-5 either cosmetically or the quality of my photos and the scratch is so small that I hardly think about it.

Jay

[VoiceOfReason]

Close, but no contact. It is a PITA to get a good pic, but there is a fraction on a MM between it. So either Pentax had sloppy machining and tolerances or Sigma did. Not going to complain either way because both work fine.

[Winder]

I don't remember Sigma ever producing a lens exclusively in Pentax mount. Weren't those lenses also offered in Nikon and Cannon mount? Your statement confuses me a bit.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here. As I read it you bought a Pentax because you hoped they would someday make a FF so you could use Sigma lenses on the not yet produced FF. Lenses that could be had in Cannon and Nikon mount for their already in existence FFs.

I didn't say they were exclusive. I bought the Sigma 85mm which was not available from Pentax. I bought the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 because after trying the DA* 55mm I preferred the Sigma. I was going to buy the Sigma 70-200mm and the 24-70mm, but I was waiting on the FF option. For a long time the only Pentax lens I owned was the 31mm and that was bought before the Sigma 35mm ART was released. I really liked the Pentax bodies and IBIS since I was coming over from shooting the Olympus E-3. The DA lenses I really never cared anything about.

[Parallax]

Fair enough. I understood your statement "I actually bought into Pentax because several of the lenses I wanted were offered by Sigma." to mean that you bought into Pentax (i.e. you didn't have a Pentax) so you could use Sigma lenses.

[Not a Number]

Thumbs down to Pentax for cutting things a little close here. I suspect that clearance with some Pentax product might be a little tight as well.

Has anybody tried mounting any of the Pentax K-mount bellows on the K-1 yet?

So did Ricoh check the clearance on all Pentax F, FA, DA and D FA. Maybe. Maybe they check A, M and K lenses to. Is it Ricoh responsibility to check compatibility with 3rd Party lenses that aren't paying the license for the K-mount? No. It probably isn't even Ricoh's responsibility check compatibility with licensed lenses. Precedent - Asahi-Pentax adding the power zoom contacts to the mount causing some Vivitar lenses with oversized flanges not to fit or fit scratching the contacts or bracket for the contacts. Those lenses were designed and manufactured before the power zoom contacts were added to the K-mount specifications. Is that Pentax fault they aren't forward compatible especially if they were outside the specifications to begin with?

[mee]

I now wonder if this means other Sigma lenses may never see K mount due to this issue? I was hoping to see the 24-105 f/4 and the longer macros (150 and 180mm) show up in K mount.. It's kind of too bad if not. I prefer Sigma lenses too..

[LaurenOE]

I just put my Sigma EX DG HSM 85mm f/1.4 on the K1.
Then I put my Sigma DG 50-500 f/4.5-6.3 APO HSM on too.
While these lenses appear on the "list" from Sigma, they made no mark and worked - amazingly on the K1.
The lenses might *just* be contacting the K1, but without a mark or scratch, I'm fine with it.

[distudio]

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.

Indeed, if I finally end up switching brands after 30+ years of continuous Pentax use it will be to Nikon and I will buy mostly Sigma glass. The body is simply a mirror-box and sensor for my lenses.