[yozza]

I am looking to buy a 35 mm lense for the k1, and camera across the sigma art. From what i read they don't fit well without on the mounts without scratching. Is this still the case, and if so are there any other 35mm primes that anyone would recommend for the K1?

Thanks

[Wild Mark]

yes, my sigma scratched the K1. You can request Sigma to change the mount apparently to suit the K1. Perhaps ask CRK?

[Paul the Sunman]

I got mine done by CRK as soon as I got the K-1. It only took a few days and was free.

[Adam]

I am looking to buy a 35 mm lense for the k1, and camera across the sigma art. From what i read they don't fit well without on the mounts without scratching. Is this still the case, and if so are there any other 35mm primes that anyone would recommend for the K1?

Thanks

Grab the 35mm F1.4, send it to Sigma for the mount replacement, and you should be all set

I'd contact them beforehand, as certain serial numbers may already have been fixed.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[rawr]

... are there any other 35mm primes that anyone would recommend for the K1?

In terms of currently available AF lenses, the Pentax FA 35 f2 seems nice. And of course the DA 35 f2.4 is FF compatible too.

And since there's not a lot of difference between 35 and 31, the FA 31 is certainly worth a look. Ditto for 35 vs 40 - the DA 40 may be worth checking out, as it also works OK on FF.

[Bengan]

Grab the 35mm F1.4, send it to Sigma for the mount replacement, and you should be all set I'd contact them beforehand, as certain serial numbers may already have been fixed.

Like Adam said. Don't let the scratch warning scare you since it's easily fixed if necessary. The Sigma 35 1.4 is a fantastic lens. If you buy it over the counter you can check if it's already converted. First photo shows an original mount (this one is on a 8-16) and the second the converted "K-1 mount" (the 35 1.4).

[Adam]

Like Adam said. Don't let the scratch warning scare you since it's easily fixed if necessary. The Sigma 35 1.4 is a fantastic lens. If you buy it over the counter you can check if it's already converted. First photo shows an original mount (this one is on a 8-16) and the second the converted "K-1 mount" (the 35 1.4).

These pics illustrate the change beautifully! Thanks for posting.

[MJKoski]

Yes. Thanks. Have been looking as well.

[Paul2660]

BTW the actual scratch is hardly noticeable.

The 35 1.4 is a great lens. Only wish Sigma would make the 20mm 1.4 and new 85mm 1.4 in the K mount.

Paul C

[funktionsfrei]

First photo shows an original mount (this one is on a 8-16)

This is not a good example, since that lens mount does not scratch anything in it's original state. The problematic lens mounts (such as on the 70-200/2.8) are much larger in diameter.

The depicted 8-16 mount is without any problems, as are a lot of other sigma lens mounts.

[Bengan]

This is not a good example, since that lens mount does not scratch anything in it's original state.

The mounts that need adjusting might be somewhat larger, but the photos show that the converted mount has a more pronounced bevelled edge which is how you can distinguish between the two.

[jantjooh]

I went to a shop nearby, and asked if they could get the 35mm Art, WITH the modification for my K-1. They could. I was allowed to test it in the shop and I bought it, and i am happy with it. Oh and the price was comparable to the onine -shop offerings. But I must say, that it was the same shop, where I bought my K-1, first.

[funktionsfrei]

but the photos show that the converted mount has a more pronounced bevelled edge which is how you can distinguish between the two.

I beg to differ. Yes, the non-bevelled edge is an indication for an unmodified mount, but it is as such not an indication of the necessity to modify the mount.

As I've already stated, the depicted non-modified mount (of your 8-16) is perfectly in order and needs no modification at all. The thing is, Sigma uses different outer diameters on their bayonet rings, and those that have to be modfied, are really huge in comparison to those that don't.

Attached is an image of my Sigma 70-200/2.8 before it's modification. When you compare the outer diameter of the bayonet flange to the diameter of the circle, on which the contacts are aligned, you can see the vast difference to the bayonet flange of your 8-16.


What I deem very good service is Sigma's handling of that issue - my lens is utterly and completely out of any kind of warranty, yet it was serviced for free (not only getting a new bayonet ring but also a vital firmware upgrade needed not to freeze the K-1).

[Bengan]

I beg to differ. Yes, the non-bevelled edge is an indication for an unmodified mount, but it is as such not an indication of the necessity to modify the mount.

I'm not arguing with you. I know that the 8-16 doesn't need any modification. I'm using it @16 mm on my K-1. I can see from your picture that the diameter is larger, but the bevelled edge is about the same as on my 8-16 whitch is my point. The photos aimed to illustrate the before and after look of the 35 1.4 and I still think that they do.


...and yes, the Sigma service was great.

[funktionsfrei]

Neither am I arguing with you; we're definitively on the same side of the fence ;-)

For illustration purposes, we should use all three images. Mine for the size, yours for the bevel.

Good light!