Sigma 400mm

Chako · 09-01-2007, 12:35 PM

I know MC can mean multi coated. Minolta did have an MC line of lenses that predates their MD lineup. In this case, the MC stands for meter coupled.

Think I pull your leg? Here is a link just to add some weight to what I say.

The Rokkor Files - Minolta Lens History

r3nx · 09-01-2007, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Chako

I know MC can mean multi coated. Minolta did have an MC line of lenses that predates their MD lineup. In this case, the MC stands for meter coupled.

Think I pull your leg? Here is a link just to add some weight to what I say.

The Rokkor Files - Minolta Lens History

Sorry, never thought so. Let me rephrase that. What I meant was, that for MY lens MC stands for multicoated. Didn't doubt about the Minolta mount.

But these mirror lens photos look awful, could you shoot in Raw and post max quality pictures sometime? Hard to tell on these low quality pics.

JCSullivan · 09-01-2007, 01:20 PM

In this case - definately Multi Coated - I apologise for using abbreviations.

Rennu, sorry, I don't know what to do after I have taken a RAW shot. So can't do it. I'm open to a quick, bulleted lesson.

r3nx · 09-01-2007, 01:25 PM

Have Pentax Photo lab (comes with pentax digital slr products)or Adobe Photoshop (needs a support update)?

If you have one of them, it's easy and logical. Just open the raw and else is upto your eyes & instinct.

Chako · 09-01-2007, 01:39 PM

Np

Anyhow, all mirror lenses give you that donut shaped bokeh. It depends on the background. Sometimes, it can be rather pleasing. Most of the time, it is rather ugly. I believe Herbert Kepler in Popular photography sang the praise of a cheap mirror lens 8 or so years ago. They are awesome if you need to hike far and want to go light. The main issue with them is their lightness. You need to put these on a tripod because their light weight does nothing to help your jitters.

Hope you don't mind, I downloaded one of your photos and ran it through 2 changes (a quick 10 second fix). Using Photoshop CS2, I applied a smart sharpen to remove lens blur for the 1 pixel radius at standard 100% strength. After that, I then applied a contrast of +10. That is all I did. I just slightly sharpened the photo and made the contrast a little more pronounced. See the difference?

JCSullivan · 09-04-2007, 06:49 PM

Thanks Chako - you BET I can see the difference and YES I agree with the 'donut' boket - it is so absolutely ugly.

NEW UPDATE:

Sigma Japan gave me the following information on the lens - still I can't find anything anywhere on the internet about it.

Release year: 1985
Lens Construction: 7 elements in 7 groups
Minimum Focusing Distance: 200cm
Maximum Magnification: 1:4.3
Dimensions: 92x111.5
Weight: 625g

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Lens Blowout; 50mm 1.4, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 400mm, etc.	nufenstein	Sold Items	13	03-30-2009 12:00 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: Samsung GX10, Sigma 50-500mm (Bigma), Sigma 400mm AF	chirpy	Sold Items	4	03-24-2008 11:07 AM
Tokina 80-400mm vs. Sigma 135-400mm	Buddha Jones	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	02-02-2008 04:53 PM

09-01-2007, 12:35 PM	#31
Chako Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ont, Canada. Posts: 563	I know MC can mean multi coated. Minolta did have an MC line of lenses that predates their MD lineup. In this case, the MC stands for meter coupled. Think I pull your leg? Here is a link just to add some weight to what I say. The Rokkor Files - Minolta Lens History

09-01-2007, 12:59 PM	#32
r3nx Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Estonia Posts: 64	Originally posted by Chako I know MC can mean multi coated. Minolta did have an MC line of lenses that predates their MD lineup. In this case, the MC stands for meter coupled. Think I pull your leg? Here is a link just to add some weight to what I say. The Rokkor Files - Minolta Lens History Sorry, never thought so. Let me rephrase that. What I meant was, that for MY lens MC stands for multicoated. Didn't doubt about the Minolta mount. But these mirror lens photos look awful, could you shoot in Raw and post max quality pictures sometime? Hard to tell on these low quality pics.

09-01-2007, 01:20 PM	#33
JCSullivan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Windsor, Canada Posts: 3,056 Original Poster	In this case - definately Multi Coated - I apologise for using abbreviations. Rennu, sorry, I don't know what to do after I have taken a RAW shot. So can't do it. I'm open to a quick, bulleted lesson.

09-01-2007, 01:25 PM	#34
r3nx Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Estonia Posts: 64	Have Pentax Photo lab (comes with pentax digital slr products)or Adobe Photoshop (needs a support update)? If you have one of them, it's easy and logical. Just open the raw and else is upto your eyes & instinct.

09-01-2007, 01:39 PM	#35
Chako Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ont, Canada. Posts: 563	Np Anyhow, all mirror lenses give you that donut shaped bokeh. It depends on the background. Sometimes, it can be rather pleasing. Most of the time, it is rather ugly. I believe Herbert Kepler in Popular photography sang the praise of a cheap mirror lens 8 or so years ago. They are awesome if you need to hike far and want to go light. The main issue with them is their lightness. You need to put these on a tripod because their light weight does nothing to help your jitters. Hope you don't mind, I downloaded one of your photos and ran it through 2 changes (a quick 10 second fix). Using Photoshop CS2, I applied a smart sharpen to remove lens blur for the 1 pixel radius at standard 100% strength. After that, I then applied a contrast of +10. That is all I did. I just slightly sharpened the photo and made the contrast a little more pronounced. See the difference?

09-04-2007, 06:49 PM	#36
JCSullivan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Windsor, Canada Posts: 3,056 Original Poster	Thanks Chako - you BET I can see the difference and YES I agree with the 'donut' boket - it is so absolutely ugly. NEW UPDATE: Sigma Japan gave me the following information on the lens - still I can't find anything anywhere on the internet about it. Release year: 1985 Lens Construction: 7 elements in 7 groups Minimum Focusing Distance: 200cm Maximum Magnification: 1:4.3 Dimensions: 92x111.5 Weight: 625g