[Pentaxor]

Much better? Really? Unless you can report first hand experience and show us why the images of your slow zooms are much better than the images of a Sigma 28/1.8 then I'd abstain from such statements, if I were you.

does it matter? I have scoured over the internet for a very long time (took me a lot of months) to look for any images taken with the 28/1.8 that would blow my mind away. images that I'm looking for in particular are more into general photography, not just portrait type shots. I have given the Sigma a lot of thought and time (a year) to convince myself that it's worth the focal length. and honestly speaking, I just found the Tamron 28-75 at 28mm a lot more compelling for general photography and have the images to support that claim. I have no bias towards either lenses and I have given both lenses a lot of consideration. I like the Tamron but I just wished it was atleast f1.8. the Sigma 28/1.8 answers that being an f1.8 but I'm not liking the images at slower apertures and doesn't have something special that defines it. to be much more particular, it just doesn't have that resolution that I was looking for at small apertures.

right now I'm still on the hunt for a fast 28mm that would suit my particular need. and at moment, the x100 camera eventhough is not a 28mm, would be a good alternative. it is fast and may have the resolution I'm looking for at all if not most aperture speed that would fit certain scenarios.

---

Last edited by Pentaxor; 02-23-2011 at 03:19 PM.

[macTak]

I have seen surprisingly good shots with this lens (both sharpness and bokeh) in close focusing situations. However, my main issue with the lens (otherwise I'd already have one) was that it is partuculy large and heavy--500g--for the focal length.

[StephenMerola]

I guess those are the sacrafices that have to be made for f/1.8 (at 28mm) and near macro capabilities.

I have seen surprisingly good shots with this lens (both sharpness and bokeh) in close focusing situations. However, my main issue with the lens (otherwise I'd already have one) was that it is partuculy large and heavy--500g--for the focal length.

[Pentaxor]

I guess those are the sacrafices that have to be made for f/1.8 (at 28mm) and near macro capabilities.

well, what modern day Sigma doesn't look large and heavy? considering the size of the OEM lenses for other mounts, Pentax probably produce one of the more compact size lenses.

[Egg Salad]

As long as they provide the performance they do I'm totally fine with that. But yup, Sigma's lenses are huge. But at least their HSM is no SDM - big pro for Sigma.

Proof for its performance:
Purple rose by ~Egg-Salad on deviantART
Garden June 2010 - 18 by ~Egg-Salad on deviantART To me, that's some very nice bokeh.
Crank by ~Egg-Salad on deviantART But it can also look quite trippy.
http://egg-salad.deviantart.com/art/Garden-May-2010-36-191773918?q=gallery%3...27935989&qo=11 Moar bokeh.
http://egg-salad.deviantart.com/art/Garden-May-2010-40-191774242?q=gallery%3...F27935989&qo=7 Smoothness alert!
Eye shot 7 by ~Egg-Salad on deviantART Close focus performance.
Aaaahhhhhhhhh by ~Egg-Salad on deviantART And very close focus - full size for download.

[StephenMerola]

True in many cases. But my zooms don't seem too big compared to others I have owned/handled.

well, what modern day Sigma doesn't look large and heavy? considering the size of the OEM lenses for other mounts, Pentax probably produce one of the more compact size lenses.

[Ratmagiclady]

To chime in on this Sigma 28, I've got one. (Yes, btw, it works fine on AF film cameras, and you get a nice crazy-fast wide that way) On crop, it's the biggest semi-wide ever. (To me, it's a lens I use more like we would a tight 35mm than a wideish normal: I picked it over the 30mm cause I in fact don't tend to put subjects *in* the center when I go that 'wide.' ) I don't find it unduly *heavy,* just bulky: it's a big housing, not all that full of glass. My old Canon 35mm f2 is what I'd call a heavy lens for that purpose.

Yes, it's by reputation far better in IQ than the 24mm, and it has qualities I like like a pretty flat field of focus and sharpness across the frame, particularly on crop.

Generally, I'm pretty pleased, mine's kind of being a poor gal's FA 31 for the time being. It doesn't feel to have a lot of 'life' to it in some subjective ways, but I find it technically quite nice.

I'd consider checking out the new 35mm 2.4 from Pentax, though, which is pretty impressive for the money and is small, or the older FA 35mm f2.

[Class A]

well, what modern day Sigma doesn't look large and heavy? considering the size of the OEM lenses for other mounts, Pentax probably produce one of the more compact size lenses.

Sigma lenses may sometimes be a tiny bit bigger than they had to be if they were screw-mount only, because they need the room for a ring motor. Even if the Pentax version is screw mount (nowadays it is often HSM), other mounts will feature a ring motor and the lens barrel is shared between mounts. But the bulk of the space is needed for the high amount of glass. The latter drives up the cost. Lens prices are largely dictated by the amount of glass used. If Sigma had a cheaper way of building fast lenses with high optical performance and little vignetting they would use it. Their 50/1.4 is huge but also has superior performance over age old designs like the FA 50/1.4. Which rendering one prefers is a matter of taste, of course, but there is no doubt that the Sigma is not bigger for the sake of looking more impressive.

Pentax is the king of small lenses and that's not to be sniffed at but note that reducing size often means making optical compromises. The M-series was small but also optically inferior to the K-series it superseded. Likewise, even more modern Pentax designs are not very fast, feature lots of PF, don't reach the peak performance of older designs, etc. I don't want to claim that the current Pentax line up is rubbish but I personally rather have a big lens with as little compromises as possible.

Proof for its performance:
Purple rose by ~Egg-Salad on deviantART

Great shot!

Crank by ~Egg-Salad on deviantART But it can also look quite trippy.

Awesome shot! Very dynamic.

Eye shot 7 by ~Egg-Salad on deviantART Close focus performance.

Wow! If only if I could remember where I've seen this before. Someone's avatar, I guess. But mirrored...

On crop, it's the biggest semi-wide ever.

Technically, it is a perfect normal for APS-C, in the same sense that the FA 43/1.9 is a perfect normal for FF. The 50mm standard for FF has always been a bit longer than "normal'.

[Egg Salad]

Same for me: performance before compactness and lightweigt any time. Another plus: huge and heavy lenses are generally tougher.

Having owned both Sigma 28mm f/1.8 lenses I'm sure it's the close focus ability that let the "Macro" grow so much in size and weight.
Here's a comparison of the Pentax-M 28mm f/3.5, Sigma's 1st generation 28mm f/1.8 Aspherical and the most recent Sigma 28mm f/1.8 Aspherical Macro
One focal length, three lenses by ~Egg-Salad on deviantART
And the first generation lens is even said to offer more resolution - couldn't support this claim with my own test. They seem equal in sharpness - both are stunningly sharp.

And, slightly OT, but another size comparison: SMC Pentax 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-F 50mm f/1.7 and Sigma 50mm f/1.4
3x50mm by ~Egg-Salad on deviantART
3x50mm front view by ~Egg-Salad on deviantART A shame Sigma didn't seal this lens - it would have been so easy...

Damn, I'm becoming a Pentax traitor. Thanks to Sigma I'm pretty much a Sigma fanboy...
--------------------

Class A, this eye shot is in no way innovative - I'm sure thousands of people have done it before me so it isn't that surprising to have seen it before.

The "Crank" shot is a special one - until then I have never seen this lens produce so weird rendering. Without the PP the effect was even more apparent. It seemed as if the background was moving. Very trippy and I love it.

Thanks for commenting on these.

[Class A]

Damn, I'm becoming a Pentax traitor. Thanks to Sigma I'm pretty much a Sigma fanboy...

Could become my sig as well...

Maybe I'll even get a Sigma 85/1.4 instead of the FA 77/1.8 I was lusting after. Yeatzee posted a link to some Sigma 85/1.4 sample pics in the "85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM versus Pentax FA 77" thread. Some bokeh CA but nothing out of the ordinary for such a fast lens. Very sharp even wide open.

I think I'd love an FA 77/1.8 but if the rendering of the Sigma 85/1.4 is as good (looking forward to direct comparisons) then I think I'd prefer the 85mm focal length and the faster speed.

Class A, this eye shot is in no way innovative...

Sorry, I just made a (failed) attempt to point out that I recognised that your avatar picture is not too dissimilar.

[Egg Salad]

There are 2 big things that stop me from getting the Sigma 85mm F1.4 as well:
1. COST
2. Minimum focus distance of 1m.
But if these issues weren't there, I'd totally get it.

I have made a lot of eye shots.
Totally missed the ironic tone... Happens to me as well. Sorry.

[Pentaxor]

There are 2 big things that stop me from getting the Sigma 85mm F1.4 as well:
1. COST
2. Minimum focus distance of 1m.
But if these issues weren't there, I'd totally get it.

I have made a lot of eye shots.
Totally missed the ironic tone... Happens to me as well. Sorry.

I understand the COST part, but which fast 85mm prime has less than 0.8m MFD? from what it appears, that is a common thing for fast 85s to have a 1m MFD.

[Egg Salad]

And that's one of the reasons why I don't own one.
Huge show stopper for me. I find the 45cm of 50mm lenses quite limiting already.
Yeah, they are normally thought as portrait lenses but still I like my share of close focusing ability.
0,8m would be just acceptable.
But whatever, I don't need a portrait lens, I already have a fast 50.

[Class A]

I find the 45cm of 50mm lenses quite limiting already.

Was it the lack of close focusing ability that you made you part with the Pentax 55-300mm?
Shots from this lens always appear to better than its price suggest they have any right to be.
Why don't you have it anymore?

Sorry, quite off-topic, hope the OP doesn't mind.

[GeneV]

One other thing to be said for Sigma is that the DG series seems to keep its aperture rings. For those of us who love our old film bodies, this is a big plus.