[Raybo]

Howdy everyone!

This is my first post and would like some of your expertise.
Does anyone have any experience or information on the this lens?
Would it be worth looking into? (I have a friend that has one but he is 50+ miles from me, would the trip be worth my trouble?)

Thanks in advance,
Ray

[Raybo]

Anyone know about this lens?

Ray

[Trawlerman]

Don't know that particular lens.
I do know the M42 24/2.8 Filtermatic from Sigma though. It's an oldish lens and dates back to the mid-70's. I would imagine yours woulb be the same era.


The Filtermatic lenses have a built in filter in the front of the lens. Mine has UV, Blue and Red IRC. Wide open it's not too sharp but stopped down to f/8 or so it's nice and sharp. The corners are not brilliantly sharp but acceptable.

I paid the equivalent of about $40 for mine here in the UK. It stays in my bag for odd occasions.

With regards to a 16mm lens you could always try the Zenitar 16/2.8 which has a good reputation but widely variable manufacturers QC.
Is the filtermatic expensive? If so, pass on it and get the Zenitar.

[creampuff]

Trawlerman, First off, the Sigma 24mm is not even in the same league as the Sigma 16mm FE, even though they share the same filter system. The version of the Filtermatic for the 24mm was an average performer and the Filtermatic feature wasn't offered in their later 24mm wide-angles.

The Sigma 16mm f/2.8 is as good if not better than the Zenitar. Because it has the A-setting on the aperture ring (on my version at least), it is far easier to shoot in every exposure mode.

It is not a very common lens but offers good performance and portability. Obviously because of the crop factor, the fisheye effect isn't as pronounced but it is still a very fun lens to use.

Raybo, if the lens is in good condition and the price is reasonable, I would recommend it. Please make sure that there must be a screw-in filter in place as it is an integral part of the lens construction.

Actual images of the Sigma 16mm FE

The Sigma 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye in Pentax PKA mount


With lens hood (needed for clipping on the 58mm lens cap)


The lens opened revealing screw-in 22.5mm filter


Sample image

---

Last edited by creampuff; 12-14-2007 at 06:08 PM.

[Raybo]

Thanks creampuff!

I did go to look at the lens and it's the spitting image of the one you posted, EXCEPT it does not have the "A" setting so it is a manual lens, it looks pristine and has the nice case and 4 filters.

He wants $50, would this be a decent price? (I took a ride after work so I did not have my K100 with me to get any images)

Thanks again,
Ray

[creampuff]

Assuming the lens elements are OK, go grab it. The price is a steal.

1) Even if you shoot in manual mode because of the absence of the A setting, it is still cheaper than a Zenitar
2) It is cheaper to buy this than to buy the more expensive Pentax MF 16mm fisheye or the even more expensive current DA 10-17mm
3) I believe this lens will hold it's value well as it isn't so easy to find one now
4) The image quality is good, flare control is good plus you will have a lot of fun with it

[Raybo]

Assuming the lens elements are OK, go grab it. The price is a steal.

1) Even if you shoot in manual mode because of the absence of the A setting, it is still cheaper than a Zenitar
2) It is cheaper to buy this than to buy the more expensive Pentax MF 16mm fisheye or the even more expensive current DA 10-17mm
3) I believe this lens will hold it's value well as it isn't so easy to find one now
4) The image quality is good, flare control is good plus you will have a lot of fun with it

WHEEEE!

I took your advice creampuff and purchased the lens, it's like a whole different experience!
I can be on top of an object and it still seems far away.
I have experimented a little with the lens and the images are great (a little "fishy" towards the edges but I guess that is to be expected)

Now........If I look through the lens with my naked eye,I see what appears to be "bubbles" somewhere in the lens, maybe it's in the aspherical part of the optics?, maybe some fungus? Maybe a flaw in the lens itself?
I have looked at the images real close and do not see any imperfections, so as of right now i'm very very happy.
Do you think I should get the lens checked out?

Thanks again,
Ray

[demondata]

Just came across your posting. Have you used it further? I also have a copy without the A-setting, and really enjoy using it, although I've recently acquired an smcp Pentax-DA 10-17 for the extra width, so it may see less use. If there are visible marks in your copy, I'd have it checked out, as I certainly don't see any when I look through mine.

If these marks are not on the 4 accessible lens surfaces, they must really be internal to some elements. Try taking some pics of a very neutral area, like a cloudless sky, at increasingly smaller apertures to see if these marks do become visible at some point.

How about showing some pics! Here's one of mine:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/176/437119077_69d10d618c_o.jpg

Andre