P: Lens support Nikkor 16mm f2.8D with Nikon Z5 and FTZ

Hi Jenny, I have shot with that setup just fine since the LR update. Have you confirmed your version of Lightroom?

Also are you seeing all the same issues as we did? Are you getting particular errors?

Celina were you ever provided a solution to this problem? 

Were you ever able to get the images shot with your sigma to import? 

@Rick is there a solution for this. I did a shoot last night with a new z5 and a sigma 35 and I can’t import the images. Help!!!!!

*tbroglinphoto did they say anything on the mobile support of lightroom/photoshop?

@Rikk  All is good so far with my Sigma 35 and 50! Thank you guys!

Thanks to the Adobe team for fixing this issue with today's update!

• Yes, it was a bug on Adobe’s end.  But the OP was using a newly released camera for a paying job, and a (then) newly released piece of software that supposedly supported said newly released camera.  While he may have tested the hardware and the software, it has long been known that 3rd party lenses don’t always work perfectly with some camera bodies.  Again, if your livelihood depends on everything working together, wouldn’t you think that doing minimal testing just makes sense (common or not).  I’ll bet cards were formatted, batteries charged, bodies and lenses correctly put into bags, spare cards, extra batteries, light sources all put in.
• My whole point is that bugs happen all the time - I’ve found and reported thousands of them.  Therefore, if you are using some combination of gear that you have not tested yourself with the software (s) you intend to use, you can never be certain it will work properly in the field or at home in the studio, unless you check it first.
• We made the same mistake that the poster made.  The images were ingested into Photo Mechanic; we assumed LR supported the newly released camera body, but we didn’t test that assumption first.

@marc_feldesman_wb8cbl66q52v 
You bring up some good points I’d like to address. I can tell you make an effort to be efficient in your life and I appreciate that. But you may be applying it here incorrectly. I agree with verifying and testing!

Please hear this out. 

Common sense is only common sense if it is generally common knowledge or can be extrapolated from common knowledge. 

This issue certainly is not common knowledge and I bet even if one made conscientious effort to educate themselves on how their devices function they still wouldn’t learn that. 

Perhaps Adobe or Nikon or both have responsibility of educating people if users are going to be punished or criticized for not having this knowledge.

But how did this happen to you two if it’s such common sense? Well in any case perhaps you or at least your wife learned from that experience and then had it scarred into your memory and knew that that could be an issue in the future. This just happened to all of us...where we just learned for the first time that this could be an issue. We will now forever remember this experience and be able to say we have this experience...surely we will share it with others who may suffer the same fate. 

The same way it isn’t common sense, it also isn’t a true assumption in the sense you mean. Just as it is not an incorrect assumption on anyone’s part to put a different brand of AAA battery into their remote control and expect the remote to work. Having not been told otherwise be able to go home from work and still access work email. Nor for me to lose the eyecup on my camera and the camera will still have autofocus. 

If there is no warning, precedent, nor obvious functional connection...someone who is not an expert on how a thing is built and how the software operates (nor should they be) is not making an assumption to think the thing will function as intended. Those who built it are responsible to educate end user.

The IT Dept (no it didn’t happen to me but I work in IT) is likely the one responsible to warn the user when issuing their laptop and account that work email is housed locally and they need to connect to a VPN first. Not scorn the dumb user for thinking they could access email at home. They failed to let the user know.

So now we’re back to testing our cameras. 

If seemingly unrelated things that there are no precedents or warnings for can cause a file to not open...well that means there is an infinite number of things that need to be tested in every combination. 

It turns into anything can cause anything. And it certainly isn’t logical to test say every aperture stop, plus every camera battery, plus AF switch on or off, plus the list goes on... in every combination.

No, I don’t think it would be a silly assumption on the user’s part to think they didn’t have to test all those things.

Yet none of this changes this simple fact, that it was a mistake, a bug, an error in Adobe’s release. Not a user error.

Awesome! Thanks.