24mm Prime ......

MrA · 04-30-2008, 11:27 AM

I have the Sigma Super-Wide II 24mm, but having not been in slr photography for so long, am confused by one thing - see pictures someone uploaded of the lens at
Sigma Superwide-II 24/2.8 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

- what are the diagonal markings for? What is the significance of the 22-16-11-8-R-4? I'm quite happily using the manual aperture and focus ring and all is working, but am I missing something? I mean, it looks like alignments for focus at different apertures, say, except 22 appears twice...

maxwell1295 · 04-30-2008, 11:39 AM

Here's a Photozone.de review of the Sigma 24mm Super Wide. This is the AF version of this lens, but I'm pretty sure the optics are the same.

Sigma AF 24mm f/2.8 macro (Pentax K) - Photozone Review / Lab Test Report

Photodo rating: Sigma AF 24mm f/2.8 MTF data

Miserere · 04-30-2008, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by MrA

I have the Sigma Super-Wide II 24mm, but having not been in slr photography for so long, am confused by one thing.
- what are the diagonal markings for? What is the significance of the 22-16-11-8-R-4? I'm quite happily using the manual aperture and focus ring and all is working, but am I missing something? I mean, it looks like alignments for focus at different apertures, say, except 22 appears twice...

Go here, and scroll down to the section titled Focusing on the Hyperfocal Distance; that should clear things up for you.

And here's another nice article on hyperfocal focusing.

k100d · 04-30-2008, 02:19 PM

basically hyperfocal focusing allows the background and foreground to be sharp in your photo

Trawlerman · 05-01-2008, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by MrA

I have the Sigma Super-Wide II 24mm, but having not been in slr photography for so long, am confused by one thing - see pictures someone uploaded of the lens at
Sigma Superwide-II 24/2.8 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Those are the pics I uploaded that I got from the seller.

The lens came in the post this morning and it's a beauty. I've not been able to get out yet as I'm working on the night shift this week but hopefully I will get out and shoot some at the weekend.

The Sigma 24/2.8 is also joined by an SMC-M 85/2.0 that i've been hankering after for some time.

Miserere · 05-01-2008, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Trawlerman

Those are the pics I uploaded that I got from the seller.

It's a small world, huh? I was just going over your equipment pics yesterday and was reminded that I might want a Tokina 19-35mm

I look forward to your views on the Sigma 24mm as, from your Flickr pics, I gather that you know what you're doing behind the camera.

jsherman999 · 05-01-2008, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Trawlerman

The Sigma 24/2.8 is also joined by an SMC-M 85/2.0 that i've been hankering after for some time.

Congrats, you'll love it.

.

MrA · 05-02-2008, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Miserere

Go here, and scroll down to the section titled Focusing on the Hyperfocal Distance; that should clear things up for you.

And here's another nice article on hyperfocal focusing.

Many thanks. Makes perfect sense.

Abbazz · 05-02-2008, 09:49 PM

Here are some pictures taken with the Sigma 24/1.8 EX DG. No sharpening applied.

Taken at F/1.8:

Taken at F/1.8:

Taken at F/5.6:

100% crop from previous picture:

Cheers!

Abbazz

Miserere · 05-04-2008, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Abbazz

Here are some pictures taken with the Sigma 24/1.8 EX DG. No sharpening applied.

Cheers!

Abbazz

Before, I really wanted this lens. Now I really want it.

Pic. #2 is the reason why I want it. Close focus at a wide(ish) angle with a large aperture is a look I love, especially with people. Thanks for the photos, Abbazz!

Trawlerman · 05-05-2008, 12:41 PM

I think my Sigma 24/2.8 might be a duffer.

Look at this .............

Nice and sharp in the middle but the outside looks like it has camera shake? Is it me or does this look crap? EXIF says 1/250th but no aperture setting recorded. I would have thought that at that speed, shake wouldn't be a problem.

sklathill · 05-05-2008, 01:45 PM

That does look like a bum lens. Also not quite sure what you can do about, since it is definitely on the old side. Last I checked, Sigma couldn't service my 24/2.8 (bought new in the early 90s)...

Ah well. That turned me into a super happy 24/1.8 owner. That's a very fine lens, that...

MrA · 05-05-2008, 02:01 PM

There seem to be a number of ebayers selling lenses "on behalf of their brother" or somesuch, claiming to be ignorant of matters photographic. A small part of me suspects this is why.

**germar** · 05-05-2008, 02:13 PM

Wow, Trawlerman, that's a SHAME. There's clearly a huge flaw in that lens. My Superwide II is tack sharp across the image area. I would say the lens was misrepresented as that's an amazingly obvious flaw.

Was it an ebay purchase? Man, I'd get in contact with the seller and try to send that lens back.

Terrible shame.

germar

Miserere · 05-05-2008, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by germar

Wow, Trawlerman, that's a SHAME. There's clearly a huge flaw in that lens. My Superwide II is tack sharp across the image area. I would say the lens was misrepresented as that's an amazingly obvious flaw.

Was it an ebay purchase? Man, I'd get in contact with the seller and try to send that lens back.

Terrible shame.

germar

I agree on all accounts! Check out my flower pic posted some days ago; it was not cropped and you can tell from the bokeh that nothing funny is going on in the edges.

I'm so sorry for you, mate! I hope this doesn't put you off trying to get another copy of this fine lens (after you get your money back!).

04-30-2008, 01:34 PM	#18
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	Originally posted by MrA I have the Sigma Super-Wide II 24mm, but having not been in slr photography for so long, am confused by one thing. - what are the diagonal markings for? What is the significance of the 22-16-11-8-R-4? I'm quite happily using the manual aperture and focus ring and all is working, but am I missing something? I mean, it looks like alignments for focus at different apertures, say, except 22 appears twice... Go here, and scroll down to the section titled Focusing on the Hyperfocal Distance; that should clear things up for you. And here's another nice article on hyperfocal focusing. Last edited by Miserere; 04-30-2008 at 01:47 PM.

05-02-2008, 09:49 PM	#24
Abbazz Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Jakarta Posts: 667	Here are some pictures taken with the Sigma 24/1.8 EX DG. No sharpening applied. Taken at F/1.8: Taken at F/1.8: Taken at F/5.6: Taken at F/5.6: 100% crop from previous picture: Cheers! Abbazz

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 24mm "Super-Wide" f2.8 Autofocus Prime Lens	Youngster	Sold Items	1	09-18-2008 12:56 AM
For Sale - Sold: FS: Pentax K 24mm f2.8 Prime Lens	Youngster	Sold Items	1	03-16-2008 11:54 AM

04-30-2008, 11:27 AM	#16
MrA Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: England UK Posts: 211	I have the Sigma Super-Wide II 24mm, but having not been in slr photography for so long, am confused by one thing - see pictures someone uploaded of the lens at Sigma Superwide-II 24/2.8 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! - what are the diagonal markings for? What is the significance of the 22-16-11-8-R-4? I'm quite happily using the manual aperture and focus ring and all is working, but am I missing something? I mean, it looks like alignments for focus at different apertures, say, except 22 appears twice...

04-30-2008, 11:39 AM	#17
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703	Here's a Photozone.de review of the Sigma 24mm Super Wide. This is the AF version of this lens, but I'm pretty sure the optics are the same. Sigma AF 24mm f/2.8 macro (Pentax K) - Photozone Review / Lab Test Report Photodo rating: Sigma AF 24mm f/2.8 MTF data

04-30-2008, 02:19 PM	#19
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	basically hyperfocal focusing allows the background and foreground to be sharp in your photo

05-01-2008, 01:38 PM	#20
Trawlerman Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Hull, Yorkshire, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 210 Original Poster	Originally posted by MrA I have the Sigma Super-Wide II 24mm, but having not been in slr photography for so long, am confused by one thing - see pictures someone uploaded of the lens at Sigma Superwide-II 24/2.8 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Those are the pics I uploaded that I got from the seller. The lens came in the post this morning and it's a beauty. I've not been able to get out yet as I'm working on the night shift this week but hopefully I will get out and shoot some at the weekend. The Sigma 24/2.8 is also joined by an SMC-M 85/2.0 that i've been hankering after for some time.

05-01-2008, 02:49 PM	#21
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	Originally posted by Trawlerman Those are the pics I uploaded that I got from the seller. It's a small world, huh? I was just going over your equipment pics yesterday and was reminded that I might want a Tokina 19-35mm I look forward to your views on the Sigma 24mm as, from your Flickr pics, I gather that you know what you're doing behind the camera.

05-01-2008, 02:52 PM	#22
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Trawlerman The Sigma 24/2.8 is also joined by an SMC-M 85/2.0 that i've been hankering after for some time. Congrats, you'll love it. .

05-02-2008, 11:02 AM	#23
MrA Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: England UK Posts: 211	Originally posted by Miserere Go here, and scroll down to the section titled Focusing on the Hyperfocal Distance; that should clear things up for you. And here's another nice article on hyperfocal focusing. Many thanks. Makes perfect sense.

05-04-2008, 01:05 PM	#25
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	Originally posted by Abbazz Here are some pictures taken with the Sigma 24/1.8 EX DG. No sharpening applied. Cheers! Abbazz Before, I really wanted this lens. Now I really want it. Pic. #2 is the reason why I want it. Close focus at a wide(ish) angle with a large aperture is a look I love, especially with people. Thanks for the photos, Abbazz!

05-05-2008, 12:41 PM	#26
Trawlerman Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Hull, Yorkshire, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 210 Original Poster	I think my Sigma 24/2.8 might be a duffer. Look at this ............. Nice and sharp in the middle but the outside looks like it has camera shake? Is it me or does this look crap? EXIF says 1/250th but no aperture setting recorded. I would have thought that at that speed, shake wouldn't be a problem.

05-05-2008, 01:45 PM	#27
sklathill Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 64	That does look like a bum lens. Also not quite sure what you can do about, since it is definitely on the old side. Last I checked, Sigma couldn't service my 24/2.8 (bought new in the early 90s)... Ah well. That turned me into a super happy 24/1.8 owner. That's a very fine lens, that...

05-05-2008, 02:01 PM	#28
MrA Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: England UK Posts: 211	There seem to be a number of ebayers selling lenses "on behalf of their brother" or somesuch, claiming to be ignorant of matters photographic. A small part of me suspects this is why.

05-05-2008, 02:13 PM	#29
germar Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: North Palm Beach, Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 728	Wow, Trawlerman, that's a SHAME. There's clearly a huge flaw in that lens. My Superwide II is tack sharp across the image area. I would say the lens was misrepresented as that's an amazingly obvious flaw. Was it an ebay purchase? Man, I'd get in contact with the seller and try to send that lens back. Terrible shame. germar

05-05-2008, 02:55 PM	#30
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	Originally posted by germar Wow, Trawlerman, that's a SHAME. There's clearly a huge flaw in that lens. My Superwide II is tack sharp across the image area. I would say the lens was misrepresented as that's an amazingly obvious flaw. Was it an ebay purchase? Man, I'd get in contact with the seller and try to send that lens back. Terrible shame. germar I agree on all accounts! Check out my flower pic posted some days ago; it was not cropped and you can tell from the bokeh that nothing funny is going on in the edges. I'm so sorry for you, mate! I hope this doesn't put you off trying to get another copy of this fine lens (after you get your money back!).