Lens comparison- which is which

stevebrot · 06-05-2013, 02:08 PM

I don't know if the Pentax delivers $1000 extra goodness, but it is good to see that the extra money buys something.

Steve

(...for the record, chose the bottom as being the Pentax shot...)

slip · 06-05-2013, 02:09 PM

Bravo! more please, these are interesting comparisons... boy Sigma has come a long way

cheers

randy

tessfully · 06-06-2013, 04:47 AM

Better? This is the sigma .... I removed the sharpening and definition, toned down the greens, did a white balance (took less than 5 minutes). Can't do much about the bokeh and I noticed in all my shots with the sigma so far the bokeh is not beautiful like the DA* or my Tamron 90 for example.

stormtech · 06-06-2013, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by tessfully

Better? This is the sigma .... I removed the sharpening and definition, toned down the greens, did a white balance (took less than 5 minutes). Can't do much about the bokeh and I noticed in all my shots with the sigma so far the bokeh is not beautiful like the DA* or my Tamron 90 for example.

To me that looks a lot more natural. It looks like you made a good choice with the Sigma for a super zoom. Curious as to what focal length was used?

I'll stop at that. Norm says you guys shoot with your (you and Norm) end game being salable over saturated prints and I certainly don't want to get into an argument about that since it is none of my business.

tessfully · 06-06-2013, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by stormtech

To me that looks a lot more natural. It looks like you made a good choice with the Sigma for a super zoom. Curious as to what focal length was used?

I'll stop at that. Norm says you guys shoot with your (you and Norm) end game being salable over saturated prints and I certainly don't want to get into an argument about that since it is none of my business.

I was really tired when I processed those other shots. Usually I wait till the next day before I share anything to make sure my pp is okay. It took me a little while to see what you saw, and I would not print those until I undid the sharpening. There is no argument re: printing for sales on my end ... that has more to do with colour saturation and contrast, not dark black sharpening lines.

I like the Sigma okay. I was surprised at the colour cast when I did a white balance, and I am disappointed in the bokeh, but I am still very pleased with my wolf pictures overall. It will be a better than average walk-around lens and a good lens to have on the camera when I am in the canoe. My good primes are safely packed away and inaccessible during those times.

edit to add... the focal length was 180mm

normhead · 06-06-2013, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by stormtech

To me that looks a lot more natural. It looks like you made a good choice with the Sigma for a super zoom. Curious as to what focal length was used?

I'll stop at that. Norm says you guys shoot with your (you and Norm) end game being salable over saturated prints and I certainly don't want to get into an argument about that since it is none of my business.

Every year this time of year, with the new growth, we get accused of over-saturating our images often images that have nothing done to them beyond our import preset.... I guess we should desaturate to meet people's expectations.

stormtech · 06-06-2013, 07:26 AM

All of this is high subjective of course - we all have our own taste when it comes to the final image.

I know exactly what you are saying about the new spring growth Norm - our greens right now are just overwhelming to the naked eye and even more exaggerated when shooing. Especially on a day like today here where it is raining on and off and overcast.

I think the wolf pics are awesome - what an opportunity to get such close-up shots.

I think the Sigma lens will serve you well for your intentions. For myself, all the Sigma lenses I've used over the years have a different color cast compared to the Pentax glass. I get so used to the color "pop" if you will with the Pentax, I found I had to increase the saturation and contrast some with the Sigma to match what I am used to.

I didn't mean to start a conflict - we all process out images to our own tastes so I guess I should have just kept my mouth shut in the beginning - my apologies to both of you!

tessfully · 06-06-2013, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by stormtech

I didn't mean to start a conflict - we all process out images to our own tastes so I guess I should have just kept my mouth shut in the beginning - my apologies to both of you!

I am glad you brought it up Stan. It helped me a lot. Thanks...

normhead · 06-06-2013, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by stormtech

All of this is high subjective of course - we all have our own taste when it comes to the final image.

I know exactly what you are saying about the new spring growth Norm - our greens right now are just overwhelming to the naked eye and even more exaggerated when shooing. Especially on a day like today here where it is raining on and off and overcast.

I think the wolf pics are awesome - what an opportunity to get such close-up shots.

I think the Sigma lens will serve you well for your intentions. For myself, all the Sigma lenses I've used over the years have a different color cast compared to the Pentax glass. I get so used to the color "pop" if you will with the Pentax, I found I had to increase the saturation and contrast some with the Sigma to match what I am used to.

I didn't mean to start a conflict - we all process out images to our own tastes so I guess I should have just kept my mouth shut in the beginning - my apologies to both of you!

No problem Stan, it's an issue I'd love to see a more thorough discussion on. We've gone from the old days when you came running out of the dark room saying "look at this when you PPed something to death, to the point where people just click on a preset and blow out all kind of detail. To us old guys just the idea of careless overprocessing is crazy, over processing used to be quite expensive. Now it's cheap, and everyone with a computer does it. Lots of room for thought there.

rawr · 06-06-2013, 08:11 AM

Out of curiosity, which Sigma model is the 18-250? The older or newer model?

The '18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS Macro HSM' is the current model I think, the older version was the 'Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM'.

normhead · 06-06-2013, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by rawr

Out of curiosity, which Sigma model is the 18-250? The older or newer model?

The '18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS Macro HSM' is the current model I think, the older version was the 'Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM'.

This is the non-OS model... in fact the Sigma guy told us that because of the image stabilization being built in no one was buying the OS in their Pentax mount and it was being discontinued. If you planned to use this lens a lot from 180mm-250mm I think you might want to snag one of the OS models real soon if you're interested. Some have said OS built into the lens works better at long focal lengths.

rawr · 06-06-2013, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by normhead

If you planned to use this lens a lot from 180mm-250mm I think you might want to snag one of the OS models real soon if you're interested.

Thanks for the info. According to DxOMark's tests on the Nikon version, even the older non-Macro OS Sigma 18-250 performs better on all measures than the 18-250 Tamron, a super-zoom which is generally well regarded around here. So the Sigma super-zoom has piqued my curiosity.

Driline · 06-28-2013, 09:32 AM

So you never really said which pic is which? I sort of inferred that the second one is the pentax after reading all of the posts but I need confirmation

normhead · 06-28-2013, 09:46 AM

Everyone was right, the DA*60-250 is the second image, with the softer less defined bokeh.. but apart from the bokeh, there's little to chose from between the two images. I have to say, we are mightily impressed by the Sigma. We paid $399 for it (I think Sigma has closed the lens out in Canada). I would definitely use it for a walk around lens on a day trip. I would also switch to the DA*60-250 if I had time, for shots that warranted it, but let's face it, not every shot has the potential to be a masterpiece, and for those images, the 18-250 does just fine. I can see going out with just this lens and my A-400 on a nice day. It probably doesn't excel at anything really, but it's more than "good enough" in both the long and wide end, maybe a bit weak in the middle.. You can't ask for more than that in a super zoom.

audiobomber · 06-28-2013, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by normhead

You can't ask for more than that in a super zoom.

It would be interesting to compare the Sigma with the Pentax 18-135mm. Any chance you could take the time? I know these comparisons are a lot of work (mostly defending what you've done after posting the results

)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Which 25mm is which?	slackercruster	Pentax Medium Format	7	06-16-2012 08:49 PM
Wedding - which lens with which body?	The Kellyboy	Photographic Technique	16	04-13-2012 05:06 PM
Which lens is better	Bern	Ask B&H Photo!	4	10-09-2011 05:09 AM
Which is which? can you guess?	axl	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	10-02-2011 06:24 AM
Which FA 28-105 is which?	FHPhotographer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	09-02-2008 01:44 PM

06-05-2013, 02:08 PM	#31
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	I don't know if the Pentax delivers $1000 extra goodness, but it is good to see that the extra money buys something. Steve (...for the record, chose the bottom as being the Pentax shot...)

06-05-2013, 02:09 PM	#32
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535	Bravo! more please, these are interesting comparisons... boy Sigma has come a long way cheers randy

06-06-2013, 04:47 AM	#33
tessfully Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: S. Algonquin, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,860	Better? This is the sigma .... I removed the sharpening and definition, toned down the greens, did a white balance (took less than 5 minutes). Can't do much about the bokeh and I noticed in all my shots with the sigma so far the bokeh is not beautiful like the DA* or my Tamron 90 for example.

06-06-2013, 05:47 AM	#34
stormtech Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: In the boonies (NW Penna) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,744	Originally posted by tessfully Better? This is the sigma .... I removed the sharpening and definition, toned down the greens, did a white balance (took less than 5 minutes). Can't do much about the bokeh and I noticed in all my shots with the sigma so far the bokeh is not beautiful like the DA* or my Tamron 90 for example. To me that looks a lot more natural. It looks like you made a good choice with the Sigma for a super zoom. Curious as to what focal length was used? I'll stop at that. Norm says you guys shoot with your (you and Norm) end game being salable over saturated prints and I certainly don't want to get into an argument about that since it is none of my business.

06-06-2013, 06:55 AM	#35
tessfully Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: S. Algonquin, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,860	Originally posted by stormtech To me that looks a lot more natural. It looks like you made a good choice with the Sigma for a super zoom. Curious as to what focal length was used? I'll stop at that. Norm says you guys shoot with your (you and Norm) end game being salable over saturated prints and I certainly don't want to get into an argument about that since it is none of my business. I was really tired when I processed those other shots. Usually I wait till the next day before I share anything to make sure my pp is okay. It took me a little while to see what you saw, and I would not print those until I undid the sharpening. There is no argument re: printing for sales on my end ... that has more to do with colour saturation and contrast, not dark black sharpening lines. I like the Sigma okay. I was surprised at the colour cast when I did a white balance, and I am disappointed in the bokeh, but I am still very pleased with my wolf pictures overall. It will be a better than average walk-around lens and a good lens to have on the camera when I am in the canoe. My good primes are safely packed away and inaccessible during those times. edit to add... the focal length was 180mm

06-06-2013, 07:04 AM	#36
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by stormtech To me that looks a lot more natural. It looks like you made a good choice with the Sigma for a super zoom. Curious as to what focal length was used? I'll stop at that. Norm says you guys shoot with your (you and Norm) end game being salable over saturated prints and I certainly don't want to get into an argument about that since it is none of my business. Every year this time of year, with the new growth, we get accused of over-saturating our images often images that have nothing done to them beyond our import preset.... I guess we should desaturate to meet people's expectations.

06-06-2013, 07:26 AM	#37
stormtech Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: In the boonies (NW Penna) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,744	All of this is high subjective of course - we all have our own taste when it comes to the final image. I know exactly what you are saying about the new spring growth Norm - our greens right now are just overwhelming to the naked eye and even more exaggerated when shooing. Especially on a day like today here where it is raining on and off and overcast. I think the wolf pics are awesome - what an opportunity to get such close-up shots. I think the Sigma lens will serve you well for your intentions. For myself, all the Sigma lenses I've used over the years have a different color cast compared to the Pentax glass. I get so used to the color "pop" if you will with the Pentax, I found I had to increase the saturation and contrast some with the Sigma to match what I am used to. I didn't mean to start a conflict - we all process out images to our own tastes so I guess I should have just kept my mouth shut in the beginning - my apologies to both of you!

06-06-2013, 07:35 AM	#38
tessfully Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: S. Algonquin, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,860	Originally posted by stormtech I didn't mean to start a conflict - we all process out images to our own tastes so I guess I should have just kept my mouth shut in the beginning - my apologies to both of you! I am glad you brought it up Stan. It helped me a lot. Thanks...

06-06-2013, 07:41 AM	#39
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by stormtech All of this is high subjective of course - we all have our own taste when it comes to the final image. I know exactly what you are saying about the new spring growth Norm - our greens right now are just overwhelming to the naked eye and even more exaggerated when shooing. Especially on a day like today here where it is raining on and off and overcast. I think the wolf pics are awesome - what an opportunity to get such close-up shots. I think the Sigma lens will serve you well for your intentions. For myself, all the Sigma lenses I've used over the years have a different color cast compared to the Pentax glass. I get so used to the color "pop" if you will with the Pentax, I found I had to increase the saturation and contrast some with the Sigma to match what I am used to. I didn't mean to start a conflict - we all process out images to our own tastes so I guess I should have just kept my mouth shut in the beginning - my apologies to both of you! No problem Stan, it's an issue I'd love to see a more thorough discussion on. We've gone from the old days when you came running out of the dark room saying "look at this when you PPed something to death, to the point where people just click on a preset and blow out all kind of detail. To us old guys just the idea of careless overprocessing is crazy, over processing used to be quite expensive. Now it's cheap, and everyone with a computer does it. Lots of room for thought there.

06-06-2013, 08:11 AM	#40
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Out of curiosity, which Sigma model is the 18-250? The older or newer model? The '18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS Macro HSM' is the current model I think, the older version was the 'Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM'.

06-06-2013, 08:34 AM	#41
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by rawr Out of curiosity, which Sigma model is the 18-250? The older or newer model? The '18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS Macro HSM' is the current model I think, the older version was the 'Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM'. This is the non-OS model... in fact the Sigma guy told us that because of the image stabilization being built in no one was buying the OS in their Pentax mount and it was being discontinued. If you planned to use this lens a lot from 180mm-250mm I think you might want to snag one of the OS models real soon if you're interested. Some have said OS built into the lens works better at long focal lengths.

06-06-2013, 08:55 AM	#42
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by normhead If you planned to use this lens a lot from 180mm-250mm I think you might want to snag one of the OS models real soon if you're interested. Thanks for the info. According to DxOMark's tests on the Nikon version, even the older non-Macro OS Sigma 18-250 performs better on all measures than the 18-250 Tamron, a super-zoom which is generally well regarded around here. So the Sigma super-zoom has piqued my curiosity.

06-28-2013, 09:32 AM	#43
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,705	So you never really said which pic is which? I sort of inferred that the second one is the pentax after reading all of the posts but I need confirmation

06-28-2013, 09:46 AM	#44
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Everyone was right, the DA60-250 is the second image, with the softer less defined bokeh.. but apart from the bokeh, there's little to chose from between the two images. I have to say, we are mightily impressed by the Sigma. We paid $399 for it (I think Sigma has closed the lens out in Canada). I would definitely use it for a walk around lens on a day trip. I would also switch to the DA60-250 if I had time, for shots that warranted it, but let's face it, not every shot has the potential to be a masterpiece, and for those images, the 18-250 does just fine. I can see going out with just this lens and my A-400 on a nice day. It probably doesn't excel at anything really, but it's more than "good enough" in both the long and wide end, maybe a bit weak in the middle.. You can't ask for more than that in a super zoom.

06-28-2013, 09:51 AM	#45
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by normhead You can't ask for more than that in a super zoom. It would be interesting to compare the Sigma with the Pentax 18-135mm. Any chance you could take the time? I know these comparisons are a lot of work (mostly defending what you've done after posting the results )