[WMBP]

It is interesting, that all of you, who used the Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro are somewhat disappointed. I use the older non-Macro version and am very satisfied with its performance. I bought it out of neccessity, as Pentax did not have a comparable lens three years ago.

Ben,

Glad to hear that you like the non-macro Sigma 18-50. I have heard good reviews of it, too. But I read somewhere - can't remember where - that the macro version was a little better. I actually ordered the non-macro version initially, then realized there were two versions of the lens, sent that one back and got the macro for a few dollars more.

I don't think it's bad at all. I've taken some shots with it that I'm happy with.

To reduce noise, I always focus manually inside a church, though it is annoying, that you cannot switch the cameras into a low-noise-mode...

That statement intrigues me. How does manual focus reduce noise?

And what do you mean by "low noise mode"?

Will

[benplaut]

Ben,

Glad to hear that you like the non-macro Sigma 18-50. I have heard good reviews of it, too. But I read somewhere - can't remember where - that the macro version was a little better. I actually ordered the non-macro version initially, then realized there were two versions of the lens, sent that one back and got the macro for a few dollars more.

I don't think it's bad at all. I've taken some shots with it that I'm happy with.


That statement intrigues me. How does manual focus reduce noise?

And what do you mean by "low noise mode"?

Will

I think what he means is that in focus areas usually show less apparent noise that OOF, so focusing manually lets him select exactly where those areas are.

Guessing, though.

[Miserere]

I think he meant real noise, as in the noise the lens makes when it's focusing

Wedding photographers have been wanting an SDM lens and camera with electronic shutter combo for years.

[WMBP]

I think he meant real noise, as in the noise the lens makes when it's focusing

Wedding photographers have been wanting and SDM lens and camera with electronic shutter combo for years.

OH, right - that must be it. Actual noise you hear with your ears.

Yes, I've said all along that the silence of compact cameras is an advantage that I miss when shooting in church with a digital SLR. There's no upside to the sound of the shutter (or mirror, whatever). And the sound of the camera focusing is also a problem, although less of one. I do like the fact that the 50-135 f/2.8 is so quiet, especially now that I've learned to trust that it actually is focusing. :-)

Will

[Ben_Edict]

Ben,

Glad to hear that you like the non-macro Sigma 18-50. I have heard good reviews of it, too. But I read somewhere - can't remember where - that the macro version was a little better. I actually ordered the non-macro version initially, then realized there were two versions of the lens, sent that one back and got the macro for a few dollars more.

I don't think it's bad at all. I've taken some shots with it that I'm happy with.

That statement intrigues me. How does manual focus reduce noise?

And what do you mean by "low noise mode"?

Will

Will, what I meant was audible noise, real noise! Some film cameras used to have (the F5, if I remember rightly...) a slowed-down motor function for silent operation in sensible surroundings. I wished, the K10/K20 had a "silent mode".

Regarding the Sigma lenses: The non-macro version is the old, original version of that lens, which was then replaced with the macro-model.

As it seems to be the case with the new Sigma 70-200/2.8 macro, adding a macro mode to an anyway complex optical system, affords even more compromises for the lens designer. Thus, the max. sharpness of those versatile lenses suffer. This is reportedly (from the tests I have seen) also the case with the 18-50 macro, compared to the older model. I cannot tell from own experience, whether this claimed reduction in overall sharpness of the current macro-enabled lenses is real or not, as I only have the older modells.

Ben

[benplaut]

Woops. Duh.

[roentarre]

Thanks for the photos, Ben. I particularly like the two that don't have people in them. (Nothing wrong with the people! Just don't quite know how to describe either of those shots: the one with the flower, and the other one with the glass ball.)

I'm definitely not a connoisseur of bokeh. I don't even like to use the word bokeh. It matters to me, just not enough to be a primary concern. Perhaps if I do start using primes more often, I'll wise up on this subject. :-)




We'll see. I keep looking out the window for the delivery truck!


Peter, congrats on the new camera. You will definitely enjoy it. I really wasn't sure whether spending the $$ to get the K20D was a good idea, but I don't regret it now.

One bit of advice though: Lower your expectations a bit. The K20D's low-light performance isn't THAT much better than the K10D's. Perhaps I'm a contrarian on this subject. I never thought that the K10D's low-light performance was as bad as people claimed; and I don't think the K20D's is as good. From what I can tell, the K20D at ISO 1600 is noisier than, say, the Nikon D300. But the result is what matters, and if you shoot raw (as I presume you do), the K20D will give you more data to work with when you use noise reduction.

Anyway, you'll like it.

Will

k20d allows more room to rescue colour and shadow details in photoshop. But somehow it is not as fast to meter comparing to k10d.

Definitely a great camera with landscape shots in Australia where the sunlight is often harsh and eucalypt trees are dark grey green.

[Rico]

Peter and roentarre

I don't know fellas I have not owned either the F or FA 28 f2.8 but the Lens Review Data base has nothing but praise for these lenses. I only suggested them because it was the focal length Will was looking for and they are really compact so they could be a lens he carries on the job with him without weighing him down.

I have owned the A28 f2.8. It is soft wide open but stopped down a little it tightens up. Along with that it has great color and contrast.

I have used the Sigma 28 f1.8 on a Canon mount. It was okay but nothing Will wouldn't get from the Pentax F and FA 28's. I think the color and contrast would go to Pentax.

[roentarre]

Peter and roentarre

I don't know fellas I have not owned either the F or FA 28 f2.8 but the Lens Review Data base has nothing but praise for these lenses. I only suggested them because it was the focal length Will was looking for and they are really compact so they could be a lens he carries on the job with him without weighing him down.

I have owned the A28 f2.8. It is soft wide open but stopped down a little it tightens up. Along with that it has great color and contrast.

I have used the Sigma 28 f1.8 on a Canon mount. It was okay but nothing Will wouldn't get from the Pentax F and FA 28's. I think the color and contrast would go to Pentax.

It is a sensible suggestion and we are all open to suggestions or criticism. No negative connotation with our posts and certainly not against you in any ways.

I guess we have to take a grain of salt when it comes to user reviews. And we have to admit that everyone's expectation is different according to cost, real life application and sample variation etc. I have to admit that there are a lot of fanboys among us and even I could way over the top at times.

Pentax in general is very strong on colour and contrast but the Fa primes like 28/2.8 and 20/2.8 are pretty much fringeholic. There were a few fans 3 years ago talking about how sharp these copies were. The lenses are not as good as they were described to be.

Will is after a reliable prime that will have a purpose vs a zoom. That extra brighter aperture is an important factor in wedding photography where fast pace is required and dim lighting is inevitable. So these two primes would be definitely compact and light but not likely to be helpful comparing to the existing zoom he is already using.

[Rico]

In that case roentarre, Will should just save the $300 and put it toward his 31 LTD fund.

[Peter Zack]

Rico. I would say no to the 31mm Ltd for this use. I have owned the lens and may get one again someday but had to put my resources where the business was going. It's a stunning lens that can take incredible portraits. But I aways found I needed more time to work with that lens. A little slower focusing and just a more artistic lens if that makes any sense.

Weddings (as has been said before) require speed. A lens like the Sigma may not be the best lens in it's group but it does everything well and in some cases better than others. I agree that the Pentax SMC coating is something that puts Pentax at a different level, But contrast isn't something I worry about too much if the lens is reasonable. You can enhance it in PP if the image is good to begin with.

As I said, I'll get another 31mm some day, the 35mm macro seems interesting but I liked the 31. That will be used for more artistic work.

[roentarre]

In that case roentarre, Will should just save the $300 and put it toward his 31 LTD fund.

As I have previously mentioned, Fa 31 ltd lags behind subjects with its sluggish autofocus and exposure using this lens can be tricky with fast paced wedding. The manual focusing on this gem is not exactly that easy in events that require instant captures of various crucial moments.

Optically, 31 ltd is no doubt very good. Just the application of it can be tricky for what Will wants to do.

[roentarre]

Oops, Peter. You got it in before me!

I would get 35mm f2.8 macro for a concept I have regarding chess board photography. A project soon.

[Rico]

Okay Okay then Will should wait for the DA*30. Then he will not have to worry when the champagne courts start flying.

[Ben_Edict]

Weddings (as has been said before) require speed. A lens like the Sigma may not be the best lens in it's group but it does everything well and in some cases better than others.

This is the exact central point, we should always consider. The very best lens might not be appropriate to use in certain circumstances, when not the highest IQ, but useability, speed, etc. are more important. Every lens is a cpompromise and every job needs other compromises. This is the exact reason, why I very often use fast zooms, even if primes provide better IQ. Having made a pleasing image is more important to the client, than having made no image, of absolutely stunning IQ...

And if I use fast primes wide open, I know they will lack on punch or corner sharpness - but the client may get an image he values highly. That is, what counts.

Ben