Brief Lens Comparison: The DAs and the FA and the Sigma

**isb.deep** · 10-17-2012, 05:55 PM

To pair up with the K-30, I managed to acquire the following:
Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX DC HSM
DA 35 2.4
DA 50 1.8
FA 43 1.9.

Out of curiosity and under the influence of caffeine, I decided to see how they fare at 2.4 and 2.8 compared to each other. The following is the result. Settings used were A-mode, IS-off as the camera was on the floor, 2 second timer, ISO Auto maxed out at 640. All lenses were micro-adjusted were micro-adjusted previously to what I felt was proper focus. At 50%, there is a difference in IQ agreed, but is the price difference for these lenses worth it.

Opinions, people ?

Attached Images

Medium FormatPro · 10-17-2012, 06:20 PM

Anyone else notice one of the more obvious differences betweetn the bottom two pics?

stevebrot · 10-17-2012, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Medium FormatPro

Anyone else notice one of the more obvious differences betweetn the bottom two pics?

You mean other than the almost full stop difference in exposure?

I am a little curious about methodology. Was the camera moved to yield the equivalent image size to the sensor or were the images cropped and re-sized after exposure?

I would suggest that in future tests that you standardize on exposure (shoot in M mode) and ditch the 0.3 exposure compensation. I would also suggest that you use a more moderate ISO, say 200. Remember, you are testing lenses, not cameras. Remote release or self-timer (2s delay mode) are also a good idea if you are going to be shooting at such slow shutter speeds with SR turned off. Tripod?

In regards to the results, I can't honestly say that I would purchase any of the lenses in the comparison based on the images shown. I know that there is a lot of work in doing this kind of comparison, but they all look uniformly poor. Sorry.

Steve

**isb.deep** · 10-18-2012, 04:31 AM

Thanks Steve for your input. I was not sure of the 'methodology ' myself which is why I thought of seeking the opinion of the more experienced folks here. Although I did use a 2 sec delay timer and the camera was firmly on the floor, I will try again with a tripod, manual settings and a lower ISO. The 35 I am definitely keeping, its the 50 and 43 Ltd I have to choose from.

msatlas · 10-18-2012, 12:37 PM

If you're keeping the 35 for sure, then you may want to choose the 50 over the 43 if only to have a more-different angle of view from the 35.

10-17-2012, 05:55 PM	#1
isb.deep Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Sterling, VA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 143	Brief Lens Comparison: The DAs and the FA and the Sigma To pair up with the K-30, I managed to acquire the following: Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX DC HSM DA 35 2.4 DA 50 1.8 FA 43 1.9. Out of curiosity and under the influence of caffeine, I decided to see how they fare at 2.4 and 2.8 compared to each other. The following is the result. Settings used were A-mode, IS-off as the camera was on the floor, 2 second timer, ISO Auto maxed out at 640. All lenses were micro-adjusted were micro-adjusted previously to what I felt was proper focus. At 50%, there is a difference in IQ agreed, but is the price difference for these lenses worth it. Opinions, people ? Attached Images

10-17-2012, 08:05 PM	#3
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Medium FormatPro Anyone else notice one of the more obvious differences betweetn the bottom two pics? You mean other than the almost full stop difference in exposure? I am a little curious about methodology. Was the camera moved to yield the equivalent image size to the sensor or were the images cropped and re-sized after exposure? I would suggest that in future tests that you standardize on exposure (shoot in M mode) and ditch the 0.3 exposure compensation. I would also suggest that you use a more moderate ISO, say 200. Remember, you are testing lenses, not cameras. Remote release or self-timer (2s delay mode) are also a good idea if you are going to be shooting at such slow shutter speeds with SR turned off. Tripod? In regards to the results, I can't honestly say that I would purchase any of the lenses in the comparison based on the images shown. I know that there is a lot of work in doing this kind of comparison, but they all look uniformly poor. Sorry. Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 10-17-2012 at 08:19 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A guy does a comparison Sigma 8-16 APS-c vs FF 12-24	normhead	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	26	10-05-2012 06:29 AM
Tamron and Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Autofocus Speed Comparison	darrenleow	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	07-26-2011 12:59 PM
Old lens vs the new DAs	sany	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	05-23-2011 02:54 PM
Tamron Vs Sigma (Kit replacement) f 2.8 comparison	genez	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	05-10-2011 09:23 PM
Why are DAs made with slower glass than FAs?	loganross	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	03-08-2007 03:27 PM

10-17-2012, 06:20 PM	#2
Medium FormatPro Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh Photos: Albums Posts: 1,668	Anyone else notice one of the more obvious differences betweetn the bottom two pics?

10-18-2012, 04:31 AM	#4
isb.deep Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Sterling, VA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 143 Original Poster	Thanks Steve for your input. I was not sure of the 'methodology ' myself which is why I thought of seeking the opinion of the more experienced folks here. Although I did use a 2 sec delay timer and the camera was firmly on the floor, I will try again with a tripod, manual settings and a lower ISO. The 35 I am definitely keeping, its the 50 and 43 Ltd I have to choose from.

10-18-2012, 12:37 PM	#5
msatlas Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 309	If you're keeping the 35 for sure, then you may want to choose the 50 over the 43 if only to have a more-different angle of view from the 35.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search