[nater]

Nater: I'm specially looking for full sized close focus pictures at big aperture. There are some few pictures from it on the net but only very few full sized ones - not to mention these are mostly ones with focus set at infinity. So since I'm also wanting it for being a "fast" lens while also offering pretty normal FOV that's my main concern.

I did a quick pass though my photos, and I don't think I have any shots with the lens at f1.8 not focussed at infinity... I have a number of macro flower shots, but it was a sunny day and they're all above f1.8. Maybe I'll take the lens out this weekend and see what I can do for photos with it at f1.8...

[Class A]

I feel, that real world experience reported by real photographers, not by lab wizzards, is far more valuable to me.

On that note I'd like to remark that while I was aware of the Sigma 28/1.8 EX and knew it could be a good lens for me in theory, the final nudge to go for it came from Peter Zack's recommendation. He does professional wedding photography and recommended the lens to me. I then knew that the lens could not be mediocre.

Still, it may not work for others, so I agree nothing beats trying a lens for oneself.

I did a quick pass though my photos, and I don't think I have any shots with the lens at f1.8 not focussed at infinity... I have a number of macro flower shots, but it was a sunny day and they're all above f1.8. Maybe I'll take the lens out this weekend and see what I can do for photos with it at f1.8...

[Egg Salad]

Soon I'll see for myself. Just won an auction on ebay for one.

Have to agree on you people that some photographers opinions are worth more than one single review. But rarely anyone supplies pictures big enough to really make your judgement properly.
At least about the 70-200 I can say that it is way sharper than I expected.

[Class A]

Soon I'll see for myself. Just won an auction on ebay for one.

Congratulations!
Please let us know how like the lens.

[Egg Salad]

So the lens arrived 4 days ago I could play a little bit. Nothing serious till now, just the usual tests. Fortunately nothing bad that's told about it is true - at least not on my lens.
Build is good - there is some wobbling in the barrel but it sounds heavy - so it's ok.
Aperture blades close down perfectly - as good as the 70-200 and clearly better than my 16-50 and leaps better than the older Sigma 1.8/28.
The focusing system is unusual but I can get around with out. However the lens hood is way too short - I can hold the hood of the 70-200 in front of it and it still doesn't vignette. Even with the long hood there are still strong flares visible - but again better than with the older Sigma.

Also of interest but not fully tested yet is sharpness/resolution. It seems to be on par with the older Sigma - which is great.
Oh, and it focuses very (very) close.

Sharpness test pictures at 20cm at f/1.8, f/2.8 and f/4

[nater]

However the lens hood is way too short - I can hold the hood of the 70-200 in front of it and it still doesn't vignette. Even with the long hood there are still strong flares visible - but again better than with the older Sigma.

Hmm, I assume you're using this lens on an APS-C (crop) sensor, not film, correct? If so, since it is a full-frame lens, the hood they include would be designed not to vignette on a full-frame, so you could certainly use a deeper hood on APS-C (how deep, I'm not sure), but I can understand why Sigma didn't include two hoods.

Glad you like the lens so far - I've certainly been happy with mine.

[Class A]

Fortunately nothing bad that's told about it is true - at least not on my lens.

Glad you got a good copy and like it so far.
Puts the lenstip review into perspective doesn't it?
If you are used to the best Leica lens performance available, perhaps their expectations are justified.

However the lens hood is way too short - I can hold the hood of the 70-200 in front of it and it still doesn't vignette.

As nater wrote, it is a FF hood.

I just noticed you once got the DA 55-300 and got rid of it. I believe it is a rather nice lens so why did you sell it?

[Egg Salad]

Firstly, I know it is aFF lens. But even the hood for the 70-200 doesn't cause vignetting so it could at least be 50% longer (for use on FF) - still too short. I have a SF-X laying around so I'll try.
I for myself am not used to the best Leica lenses but I consider myself demanding - if a lens it that sharp af f/4 I'm happy.

Yes, the 55-300 is nice. But I found it too plasticy and slow. I also was very dissappointed when I saw how even a $35 Revue prime lens beat it in terms of distortion and resolution. Besides I didn't think back the I'd ever need something that long again.
Now I have the Sigma 70-200 and I love it.

[Class A]

I also was very dissappointed when I saw how even a $35 Revue prime lens beat it in terms of distortion and resolution.

Thanks for your response.

I'm sure $35 wasn't the original price.
If you are referring to your 135/2.8 that's a great lens! I've read about it; Revue sold/rebranded all sorts of stuff and this lens is a clone of a really good original (forgot which). I guess it is not a shame for a zoom in the price range of the 55-300 to lose against such a good prime.

Now I have the Sigma 70-200 and I love it.

What model exactly is that? What is the aperture range?

BTW, it's funny how you specify the minimum f-ratio first and then the focal length. I do it the other way round since a focal length divided ("/") by an f-ration actually means something. But that's just a small aside...

[Egg Salad]

Sorry I didn't answer yet.

Sure the revue was more expensive when new. But still it is at least 20 years old. But well, it's a prime. The SMC Pentax 2.5/135 is even better and the lens I originally wanted so I could sell the revue then. Now, owning the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II (see signature) I'll sell the Pentax soon. There isn't much where the Pentax can beat the Sigma so I'm giong to replace the Pentax with a macro lens.

About my way of calling lenses: I do that because that's the way Pentax does it. On all my primes it's f-numer and then focal length. Doesn't really matter but I simply adapted it.

[Ben_Edict]

hen the focal length. I do it the other way round since a focal length divided ("/") by an f-ration actually means something. But that's just a small aside...

The slash in the lens name is not meant as the division symbol, just a separator, that one does not confuse numbers. In Germany and most other European countries it was the standard since the invention of photography to quote the max. aperture first (something like 1:2,8 - we have the comma where you use the full stop and vice versa) followed by the focal length. So the Sigma zoom would be "1:2,8/70-200 mm". Note that there is also always a space between a number and its unit ("1 mm" not "1mm" as in the US)

Ben

[Egg Salad]

That's interesting. As someone also German, I haven't heard or read that rule of seperating a number and its unit ever before.
When I'm dimensioning something, it's always 6m or 50N or whatever.

And yes, the correct kind of writing lens characteristics would be 1:something and not just the rear lens ratio.

To get this thread back on topic: the newly aquired Sigma 28mm f/1.8 (see?) Macro lens had its first serious use on saturday and pleased me with its rendering of oofs (out of focus highlights) and the sharpness in the in focus parts.

After another sharpness test I'm quite sure the new Sigma is not only as good as the older one but even better. Don't know why there is the rumour floating around the older one would be sharper.

Will upload some pictures (someday...).

Interestingly the much longer 70-200 got me much more keeper images - I thought I wouldn't need something that long and now it seems it's becoming my new favourite. Weird.

[Class A]

I'll sell the Pentax soon.

Do you mean the 1:2.5/135 mm?
I'd be interested in that lens if it is a good copy.

The slash in the lens name is not meant as the division symbol, just a separator, that one does not confuse numbers.

Yes, makes sense, Ben.
I don't mind the extra "division symbol" meaning and prefer to use the reversed notation. The additional "1:" often confused me in the past when I didn't know anything about f-ratios.

Macro lens had its first serious use on saturday and pleased me with its rendering of oofs (out of focus highlights) and the sharpness in the in focus parts.

I'm really glad for you that you are happy with the lens (and for us that we didn't talk you into a bad buy ).

Will upload some pictures (someday...).

Looking forward to seeing these.

Interestingly the much longer 70-200 got me much more keeper images - I thought I wouldn't need something that long and now it seems it's becoming my new favourite. Weird.

A wide-angle or long lens will always produce more captivating photos more easily. You have to work harder to get images with impact from a normal lens. Which is why the latter is often recommended as a lens to start with in order to acquire composition skills.

[audiobomber]

That's interesting. As someone also German, I haven't heard or read that rule of seperating a number and its unit ever before.
When I'm dimensioning something, it's always 6m or 50N or whatever.

Attaching the dimension to the number (100mm) is very strange to me, and I studied Mechanical Technology in college. A dimension on a blueprint would be written as "100 mm" in Canada.

I read an explanation once: If you are speaking about a lens, you write 100mm. If you are speaking about a distance or about a focal length in general, you separate the unit and dimension; 100 mm. For example you would say "The 16-45mm lens allows a wide angle field of view of 16 mm." What would also make sense to me would be to say "A 100mm screw has a dimension of 100 mm from the base of the screw head to the tip."

Actually, I don't really care how you say it. We all know what it means. All except the noobs who get all tangled up in the crop factor

[rparmar]

All except the noobs who get all tangled up in the crop factor

No! No! Don't say the evil phrase! Thread about to divert into horrible territory. ABORT ABORT ABORT!