[clackers]

Well, video users (bless 'em!) would prefer lens stabilization to the current electronic stuff in body.

My Sigma 150-500 in K-mount does have IS.

---

Last edited by clackers; 02-20-2016 at 05:53 AM.

[Spodeworld]

I agree but they told me that it was in response to Pentax users wanting it out. And, as a result converting it for Pentax makes it a more difficult, expensive and a much less attractive proposition for Sigma in light of the relatively small market share.

And we lose the potential advantages.

Who would want to get rid of the OS? Maybe for short lenses, but for the long lenses in-lens OS is much better than in-body SR. You get a stabilized viewfinder...They must be talking to the wrong users.

[boriscleto]

I agree but they told me that it was in response to Pentax users wanting it out. And, as a result converting it for Pentax makes it a more difficult, expensive and a much less attractive proposition for Sigma in light of the relatively small market share.

And we lose the potential advantages.

I call BS. Sorry, but Sigma has more excuses than "Pentax users wanted the OS out". The rep may have been told that, but it doesn't ring true. We've been told that Pentax doesn't have electronic aperture control. We've been told that it costs too much to make the lens barrel for the small number of lenses that would be sold in K-mount etc.

[rawr]

The way I read the K1 specs, the camera detects an APS-C lens and defaults to crop mode,

Although I haven't seen a K-1 manual, the menu options for crop mode will likely be Auto | On | Off. It's likely the default will be 'Off'. If you set the default to 'Off', the camera will shoot 36MP FF all day, every day, no matter what lens you mount.

[monochrome]

Although I haven't seen a K-1 manual, the menu options for crop mode will likely be Auto | On | Off. It's likely the default will be 'Off'. If you set the default to 'Off', the camera will shoot 36MP FF all day, every day, no matter what lens you mount.

On another thread (Kenspo! 1:1?) ogl showed a picture of the LCD Menu of what is presumably a pre-production camera. There were 4 choices for Crop:

1. Auto
2. Full
3. APSc
4. 1:1

[rawr]

There were 4 choices for Crop: Auto Full APSc 1:1

Thanks. The options look pretty straight-forward then.

If you set the camera to default to '2', it effectively means '36MP - no crop'.
'3' means '15MP - crop', and 'Auto' means the camera will [if the lens is Pentax one] attempt to figure out if the mounted lens is a DA that will work OK in mode 2, or not. Heaven knows what the '1:1' crop mode will deliver.

[clackers]

I agree but they told me that it was in response to Pentax users wanting it out.

You don't believe your fellow owners on this forum but you do the words of some salesman?

Shame, Spodeworld, shame! ☺

[Sandy Hancock]

I'm really hoping for my 35 ltd.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but although it covers more than APS-C, the DA35 macro limited is not quite a full frame lens. It is acceptable at macro focal distances, but for general photography it vignettes heavily in the corners.

These are only crappy test shots, but they get the message across I think.

Close up, wide open - good times.



Stopped down a bit, hood retracted - the vignetting is not huge, but it's heavy.

[clackers]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but although it covers more than APS-C, the DA35 macro limited is not quite a full frame lens.

Looks like a lens you could do better than APS-C mode - shoot FF and do a manual crop in post.

[Spodeworld]

We had a number of back and forths and in the end it did make sense to me, unfortunately. He said to remove the OS it required a redesign and necessitated different parts that would otherwise not be required (he explained, but I forgot, although it may have had something to do with the barrel redesign w/o OS), increasing the complexities of accommodating Pentax and dimnishing economies of scale. He said as a result it was a costly process and not worth it for such a small market. It's not just them adapting the mount. It was much bigger, costlier effort b/c of the OS removal. In a world where 'repeatability' is highly valued, the small market that doesn't benefit from that is problematic for a manufacturer. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to consider that that might really be a real consideration.

I call BS. Sorry, but Sigma has more excuses than "Pentax users wanted the OS out". The rep may have been told that, but it doesn't ring true. We've been told that Pentax doesn't have electronic aperture control. We've been told that it costs too much to make the lens barrel for the small number of lenses that would be sold in K-mount etc.

---------- Post added 02-20-16 at 06:37 PM ----------

I might be inclined to if one of them worked for sigma and had real inside knowledge .....

You don't believe your fellow owners on this forum but you do the words of some salesman?

Shame, Spodeworld, shame! ☺

[colonel00]

We had a number of back and forths and in the end it did make sense to me, unfortunately. He said to remove the OS it required a redesign and necessitated different parts that would otherwise not be required (he explained, but I forgot, although it may have had something to do with the barrel redesign w/o OS), increasing the complexities of accommodating Pentax and dimnishing economies of scale. He said as a result it was a costly process and not worth it for such a small market. It's not just them adapting the mount. It was much bigger, costlier effort b/c of the OS removal. In a world where 'repeatability' is highly valued, the small market that doesn't benefit from that is problematic for a manufacturer. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to consider that that might really be a real consideration.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it wouldn't cost money to remove the OS from the lens. I think the argument is that most would be perfectly happy with the OS still in the lens and it seems like a convenient excuse that "Pentax users wanted the OS removed". Who are these Pentax users that are so influential that they can dictate the "necessary" removal of the OS when there are hordes of Pentaxians crying for more lenses in the K-mount and they really wouldn't care if it had OS or not. There are plenty of folks perfectly happy with their Bigmas that have OS.

[panoguy]

We had a number of back and forths and in the end it did make sense to me, unfortunately. He said to remove the OS it required a redesign and necessitated different parts that would otherwise not be required (he explained, but I forgot, although it may have had something to do with the barrel redesign w/o OS), increasing the complexities of accommodating Pentax and dimnishing economies of scale. He said as a result it was a costly process and not worth it for such a small market. It's not just them adapting the mount. It was much bigger, costlier effort b/c of the OS removal. In a world where 'repeatability' is highly valued, the small market that doesn't benefit from that is problematic for a manufacturer. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to consider that that might really be a real consideration.

Long ago I was told by the head of Sigma Service in NY that it was due to the aperture control lever and Pentax having much smaller market share than Nikon (which also has an aperture control lever). There is a cost to each new lensmount, and Canon and Nikon are easily covered by volume of sales, while making every lens in Sigma SA is not only a point of pride, but also essentially Canon EF electronics on a K-mount (so truly not much to do). The more "niche" a lens is, like the 120-300/2.8 I was pestering him about, the higher the cost to offer it in a new lensmount. This was before Global Vision, though.

He also said that a few lenses were made without OS in other mounts because the OEM's requested it, not the users. IOW, when I spoke to him Hoya owned Pentax, and they didn't want Sigma to sell lenses in K-mount with OS for some reason - maybe they thought it would make SR look redundant or ineffective? Also, remember Hoya supplies most of Sigma's raw material (optical blanks), and these are Japanese companies, so they do talk to each other and show respect, even if they compete. Why this no-OS nonsense continues today, I've no idea, but I'm pretty sure Sigma is actually *saving money* by not including OS in a lens that they sell at the same price, which could then offset the price of making fewer of that mount.

*Forgot to add, I have two Sigma lenses in K-mount with OS, the 50-500 and the 17-50 (which I note is no longer sold with OS for Pentax). Just turn off SR, otherwise the results are kinda soft.

[Spodeworld]

Well, maybe if they heard from a swarm of pentax users that they are interested in their lenses and would be even more inclined to purchase them if the left in the OS it would be one less hurdle to getting them.

Long ago I was told by the head of Sigma Service in NY that it was due to the aperture control lever and Pentax having much smaller market share than Nikon (which also has an aperture control lever). There is a cost to each new lensmount, and Canon and Nikon are easily covered by volume of sales, while making every lens in Sigma SA is not only a point of pride, but also essentially Canon EF electronics on a K-mount (so truly not much to do). The more "niche" a lens is, like the 120-300/2.8 I was pestering him about, the higher the cost to offer it in a new lensmount. This was before Global Vision, though.

He also said that a few lenses were made without OS in other mounts because the OEM's requested it, not the users. IOW, when I spoke to him Hoya owned Pentax, and they didn't want Sigma to sell lenses in K-mount with OS for some reason - maybe they thought it would make SR look redundant or ineffective? Also, remember Hoya supplies most of Sigma's raw material (optical blanks), and these are Japanese companies, so they do talk to each other and show respect, even if they compete.

[monochrome]

Well, maybe if they heard from a swarm of pentax users that they are interested in their lenses and would be even more inclined to purchase them if the left in the OS it would be one less hurdle to getting them.

That's all fine, but I hope PENTAX hears from a swarm of users about what lenses we want PENTAX to release in K-mount.

[clackers]

. He said to remove the OS it required a redesign and necessitated different parts that would otherwise not be required

No, no, no ... I meant, where are all these Pentax users who want it taken out?