[Gerbermiester]

Sigma top, Pentax Bottom, right?

At this size, the only thing I could really see to be a give away was the difference in Bokeh quality.
I have my fingers crossed that the bottom is in fact not the Sigma. If it is the Sig on the bottom you've successfully instilled another bout of LBA. This Kind of LBA is the most dangerous, because I can actually afford the Sigma

Both are great shots, good job!

[TOUGEFC]

The out of focus background is a dead give away, please give us a more challenging task!

[arnold]

Bottom one shows more detail, but they are very close. I wouldn't pay $1000 for the difference.

[Sandy Hancock]

The bottom image is nicer. Sharper and better bokeh. I sure hope it's the Pentax....

[interested_observer]

Scanning from left to right across both images, using an image exploitation tool, that overlays the two images for a better comparison.

1. The foreground leaves on A are a tad more yellow (they are in a more pronounced light), while B is a bit more deep green. As you go into the background A takes on the coloration of B. I am guessing that the coloration is more accurate in B than in A (only Norm and Tess can say). The definition of the leaves (sharpness) is better in B.
2. For me its difficult to tell which has the better bokeh because of the difference in angle. They are both pleasing. Due to the angle and composition A has more depth, just due to the arrangement of the twigs and branches. Going way in to the background, they are both good.
3. The fur is very well defined in both A and B. Eyes, muzzle, ears, facial texture are both excellent and sharp.
4. Pine needles on both have the same coloring, texture and definition. Both are sharp.

Overall each image is excellent. Which one is which - I'll go with B being the DA due to the cooler colors. Please don't ask which one is better, as they both have merit in different areas.

[Kerrowdown]

To me image B looks a tad sharper and has cleaner background in terms of bokeh, I'm going with this one being the Pentax.

The real question... is it worth $1000 more?

[Digitalis]

Please don't ask which one is better, as they both have merit in different areas.

I agree the, "goodness" of a lens cannot be determined by its value alone. Some expensive Leica lenses aren't much better than their SLR equivalents: for instance, the Leica-M 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit* gets its rear element handed to it by the "classic" Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro, though things go the other way around when you compare the mechanical qualities of the two lenses.

*Though the Hexanon-M 90mm f/2.8 would beat the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 Macro hands down.

[tessfully]

It's hard to tell when both pics are so heavily post processed.

Stan, I PP both of them using a stamp so a light-hearted comparison of lens could still be made despite the processing.

Norman does not PP the same way as me... I always tend toward the dramatic, but in this case, other than the spot-sharpening, the colours and contrasts are pretty much the way they were. It was close to sunset and I actually desaturated the vibrancy of the 'new green' growth.

[jiimaa]

1. so you (tess), shooting the sigma, did the PP for the sigma first, then pasted the develop settings to the DA* one. Now the DA* looks a bit over the top, balancing the scales, to make it more interesting. The 2nd is more over the top of the two, therefore it's the DA*.

2. you're walking ahead, because ladies go first. Also the slowest sets the pace, meaning there's kids still in front of you two. And the animal is looking if one or more of the kids could be snatched and eaten now or if it'll wait for that moment when the kid is alone later. Therefore the more direct angle to the face is taken by tess, being the sigma as stated by OP, and the 2nd is the DA*.

3. you decided to compare the lenses while on a walk, meaning you decided it on a whim, so you just took the shots wide open with the intention to see what the lenses do wide open. Not to compare with scientific rigor what they could do at a given f stop. Widest aperture is one for the DA*, and something else entirely for the sigma. Therefore the DOF also gives it away; the f/4 gives a DOF - assuming the subject about 10m or 30 ft away since it's not snatched the kid yet - of about 20 cm, and the siggy at f/6-something gives DOF of something around double that of the DA*. The 1st is the deeper DOF, 2nd being the DA* again.

4. the lens is new as stated by OP, so you haven't had the time to spend hours upon hours at the studio adjusting the focus the tiniest bits back and forth trying to see if +5 or +6 would be the more correct setting for the sigma. I'm guessing +5 from that first picture, but you may still want to do the studio thing and not take my word for it. The 2nd focuses properly, so it's the DA* you've had time to play with longer.

[normhead]

I'm guessing you were standing to the right of Tess.
But you may remember which side,
in which case you do know which is which.

Hey you're right.... I was on the right side. Tess got there first and of course took the "good" spot.

It's hard to tell when both pics are so heavily post processed.

Now that's an issue I completely disagree with. We compare shots all the time, and you simply can't make a poor image look like a good image with PP. The better image at the beginning always looks better at the end. If you think the PP in this image is so heavy it's hiding detail, you probably need to rethink that. PP often brings out detail that is not clearly visible in the unprocessed file, that would have been clearly visible in real life. Or it can emphasize what caught your eye, and de-emphasize things that weren't apparent.

The first one shows more PP contrast and is has more saturated colors.
From the OoF zone on the upper left, I guess the 2nd one should be the DA* lens but I don´t think this scene has any feature that would show the difference. Less so after such heavy PP.

Ditto, read the above...

looking at the bokeh I'm inclined to agree with the others, the top image has nisen bokeh(double lines) which is characteristic of a under-corrected lens - which is more likely to occur with the Sigma 18-250mm lens than the pentax DA*60-250mm lens. I actually didn't pay much attention to the subject.

hmmm, you learn something new every day.

1. so you (tess), shooting the sigma, did the PP for the sigma first, then pasted the develop settings to the DA* one. Now the DA* looks a bit over the top, balancing the scales, to make it more interesting. The 2nd is more over the top of the two, therefore it's the DA*.

2. you're walking ahead, because ladies go first. Also the slowest sets the pace, meaning there's kids still in front of you two. And the animal is looking if one or more of the kids could be snatched and eaten now or if it'll wait for that moment when the kid is alone later. Therefore the more direct angle to the face is taken by tess, being the sigma as stated by OP, and the 2nd is the DA*.

Ha ha, Tess got there first because I was over chewing the fat with the guys. The wolf had walked back into the woods, but then came out at another spot 50 feet down the road. Tess and a another photographer went over and started shooting. The other guy and I talked for a bit before we noticed. And you're right, when I did my PP, I didn't make mine as dramatic. But, I find for printing, you have to bump everything to make up for the lack of a back light behind your canvas or paper. If I've learned anything at the shows, it's that people like photos that are over the top colourful. I don't think there's a lot of market for reality, unless it's very colourful reality.

As for the bokeh, the DA is shot at 5.6 it's strong point, @200mm. The sigma was shot at 180 mm and ƒ6.3. You could say, well the bokeh might have been better if the Sigma had been shot at ƒ5.6, but the Sigma @ 180mm is wide open @ƒ6.3, so don't say that.

Good job all, thanks for all the input.

[scratchpaddy]

That wolf is so much more interesting than a test chart. You two should do this more often.

[MSL]

Don't really care which lens is which - my budget for lenses tops out around $200. I certainly prefer the second image. I find the top image too green - the pine needles are as lush as the leaves, and it just seems wrong. Something about the coloring of the wolf also bugs me in the top image. The bottom one is less rich, and I prefer it that way.

[normhead]

That wolf is so much more interesting than a test chart. You two should do this more often.

Yes, I'm actually quite impressed with the Sigma image, but, I can also see why I'd use the DA*60-250 all things being equal. When I think about carrying it, comapred to the Sigma, you realize, in a lot of situations, all things aren't equal. The Sigma is going ot replace 3 lenses in Tess' kit, on back packing trips.

Don't really care which lens is which - my budget for lenses tops out around $200. I certainly prefer the second image. I find the top image too green - the pine needles are as lush as the leaves, and it just seems wrong. Something about the coloring of the wolf also bugs me in the top image. The bottom one is less rich, and I prefer it that way.

We got the Sigma for $399, with a zoom range of 18-250, you could consider it three lenses, a wide angle, a standard and a telephoto, so it should cost $600. You'd be well under your budget. I'm sure you could fix the colouring of the wolf in PP if that was your only issue.

[MSL]

We got the Sigma for $399, with a zoom range of 18-250, you could consider it three lenses, a wide angle, a standard and a telephoto, so it should cost $600. You'd be well under your budget. I'm sure you could fix the colouring of the wolf in PP if that was your only issue.

Agreed things are fixable, but then you trade shooting time with computer time, and I have enough of the latter with my day job. Yes, it could replace three lenses, although it isn't really a fair comparison as in prime versions you end up with much faster lenses. One thing I'd love to see is a similar test with the DA 55-300 added to the mix - as I see more need for a lens that takes me out to 300 than one that takes me down to 18.

[tomwil]

Sorry to ask this off-topic question, but does this Sigma lens also contain the screw-drive mechanism, so that it could be used on older cameras that have no SDM contacts?