Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-26-2011, 03:22 AM   #61
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
I used to have Sigma 10-20 until December. And despite it being one of the modern EX DC range, it's coatings didn't stand much chance when compared to those of my FA*24 and even those of my 35 year old K series 50mm!
How did you notice/check that?
I think it is pretty much impossible to evaluate the difference in coatings when comparing a wide-angle zoom with primes. Also, the 10-20/3.5 I have is known to be excellent regarding flare resistance. I used it for concert photography and the contrast was great, even when shooting directly into light sources.

QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
I do appreciate the developments in other brands coatings but even the old SMC glass is still just about as good as you throw at it.
If you like colour tinges, then yes it is still great.
The K50/1.2 I had was good for B&W but colour images just looked dead awful. Like an aged Agfa photo calendar from the 70's. As in yucky yuck.


QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
I'd be shooting Nikon an enjoying their "budget" line up of 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8....
Not sure what you are on about here. Sigma makes lenses that are far better than these and I'm not talking "numbers and price". Also, Pentax makes very good bodies so there is a point to shoot Pentax bodies with third party glass. Let's appreciate outstanding Pentax glass but let's call a spade a spade when we see one instead of glorifying all things Pentax. I know you personally are not doing the latter, but one gets it a lot in the forum in general.


Last edited by Class A; 02-12-2011 at 02:25 PM.
01-26-2011, 01:32 PM   #62
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
How did you notice/check that?
I think it is pretty much impossible to evaluate the difference in coatings when comparing a wide-angle zoom with primes. Also, the 10-20/3.5 I have is known to be excellent regarding flare resistance. I used it for concert photography and the contrast was great, even when shooting directly into light sources.


If you like colour tinges, then yes it is still great.
The K50/1.2 I had was good for B&W but colour images just looked dead awful. Like an aged Agfa photo calendar from the 70's. As in yucky yuck.



Not sure what you are on about here. Sigma makes lenses that are far better than these and I'm not talking "numbers and price". Also, Pentax makes very good bodies so there is a point to shoot Pentax bodies with third party glass. Let's appreciate outstanding Pentax glass but let's call a spade a spade when we see one instead of glorifying all things Pentax. I know you personally are doing the latter, but one gets it a lot in the forum in general.
WOW!
but OK....
Look, if you are happy with the Sigma, and you think it's so great keep it....
I had Sigma 10-20, the older one, but still EX DC. I'm not saying it's a bad lens. It's actually very good IMO, but It's coatings are not as good as SMC IMO.
How did I compare? I put two lenses on camera. Sigma had 14 elements in 10 groups, FA24 has 11 in 9. At 20mm pretty comparable, especially if you think that FA24 is FF lens and the elements are quite a bit larger + it's f2 against f5.6 so again larger surfaces, than that of APSC zoom.

on the side note, Sigma makes better lenses than Nikon 85/1.8, Nikon 50/1.8 and Nikon 35/1.8?!? which ones would they be?
85/1.4? apples and oranges, compare it to AF85/1.4G then talk...
30/1.4? Hardly better than Nikon's 35/1.8, it's larger, heavier, with comparable IQ and half stop faster for roughly 2x the price (here in UK)
and 50/1.4? first of all again, don't compare it to el cheapo 50/1.8 and even if, have you seen the onions that lens produces... enough said....

and if you say that pictures from K50/1.2 are "dead awful" in colour and call it "glorified spade"...oh well, I don't think we have too much in common to talk about... I definitely don't go bash anything else but SMC lenses, I stated before "I like SMC", that is my personal preference, I'm not saying 3rd party lenses are bad, no.. contrary to it, there are many great 3rd lenses, many of them Sigmas, but I (and I stress following word) prefer SMC coated lenses for these or those reasons, you don't have to, nor doesn't anybody else... I could not care less, there are many folks here who like SMC, many who like Sigmas, many who prefer Takumars, many who love their Tamrons etc... but since I am looking for lens that I want to use, that should fit my style and my preferences then, I know what I want and you can try all you want to say how great Sigma is....

as I said before, to each his own...
let's just drop the topic, OK?

Thanks for the suggestions from your side.. nice of you
01-26-2011, 05:31 PM   #63
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
Look, if you are happy with the Sigma, and you think it's so great keep it....
?
This wasn't about any of my Sigma lenses.
You seem quite agitated. I'm not sure why.
I genuinely tried to help but somehow seemed to have touched a nerve.

QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
How did I compare? I put two lenses on camera. Sigma had 14 elements in 10 groups, FA24 has 11 in 9. At 20mm pretty comparable, especially if you think that FA24 is FF lens and the elements are quite a bit larger
  1. There is a 16% difference in FOV. That surely makes a difference when comparing flare resistance.
  2. One lens is a zoom, the other a prime. Again, it makes a difference.
  3. How did you test the coatings? Did you look for flare resistance? Did you look for colour tinges? I still don't know how you determined the FA 24 coatings to be "better".
With two lenses as different as these are, I don't think you have a good chance of determining the difference in coating quality. Unless you are looking for simply things like an overall colour balance.

QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
and if you say that pictures from K50/1.2 are "dead awful" in colour and call it "glorified spade"...
  1. I never called it "glorified spade".
  2. The colours the copy I had produced were terrible. Nothing I can do about it. Your 50/1.2 pics were all accidentally in B&W? I'd be interested to see colour shots from your 50/1.2 (no WB, ideally no PP). Perhaps my copy had a problem, but I doubt it since I've seen similar tinges in other old Pentax lenses.

QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
I'm not saying 3rd party lenses are bad, no.. contrary to it,...
You basically indicated that even old SMC is better than new Sigma coatings. But let's not dwell on that. It seems you were only talking about your personal preferences anyhow; that wasn't quite clear from the beginning.

QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
....I know what I want and you can try all you want to say how great Sigma is....
Easy, easy, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
I only noticed you saying "It's not SMC" and thought you might be overrating the value of (old) SMC coatings. It is fine if you prefer old and new SMC for whatever reasons personally. It didn't occur to me that you were specifically looking for colour tinges. All good now, no reason to get wound up.

QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
let's just drop the topic, OK?
Fine with me. I didn't respond to your lens comparisons and (what I believe to be an ironic) "Thanks" at the end because I don't believe it would lead anywhere.

So if you want to drop the topic, I suggest just don't respond either. Seems like the best way to drop a topic, because if there is a response, everyone should have the right to respond again.

Last edited by Class A; 01-26-2011 at 05:39 PM.
02-12-2011, 03:44 AM   #64
Veteran Member
TOUGEFC's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,561
Peter did reach a conclusion in this Lens quest?

02-12-2011, 02:28 PM   #65
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
The conclusion might just have been to put me on his "ignore list". Hopefully not.

On revisiting this thread I noticed that in the last sentence of my post above, ("I know you personally are doing the latter, ...") there was a "not" missing (which I now inserted). It should have read ""I know you personally not are doing the latter, ..."). Hopefully from the "but" that followed it was clear that the "not" was missing.

Peter, please accept my apologies if my error let my message appear aggressive, which it was not meant to be.
02-16-2011, 10:55 AM   #66
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
Original Poster
Ignore list?
Nah, I don't do that...

and no, I haven't found what I'm looking for
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bit, k-mount, oof, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Oof, oof, oof KarenH Post Your Photos! 7 10-30-2010 01:36 AM
Smooth sailing BjornAgain Monthly Photo Contests 0 09-18-2010 02:00 AM
Abstract OOF Rense Post Your Photos! 3 08-31-2010 06:35 PM
Smooth Snow Nitrok Post Your Photos! 13 01-24-2009 11:06 AM
OOF & nothing but the OOF! Akcelik Pentax DSLR Discussion 38 03-10-2007 09:53 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:21 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top