[Oldbayrunner]

I think it has to do with which Sigma 70-300mm and on what format. I have a Sigma Dg 70-300 f4-5.6 OS I use with my K1 mkll and it performs very well on it.

[BigMackCam]

The lens you believe are stinkers are actually excellent lenses made out of high grade glass elements, it's just that they don't perform well enough on a tiny sensor the size of a postcard stamp.

The lenses I believe are stinkers were designed for the format I'm shooting on, or close to it - so if they don't perform at all well on that format, they're stinkers, regardless of the quality of glass. I'm not just talking about resolution here, but contrast, quality of out-of-focus rendering, chromatic aberrations, flare performance (including veiling flare) etc. Actually, resolution is usually the least of my concerns, especially if other factors are positive and/or appealing. As I've said many times in these forums, it's the overall rendering of a lens that's important to me... its ability to "draw" a scene and elements within it in an attractive way...

[Des]

I'm thinking of bringing in the Tamron 18-250 and the Sigma 70-300 because why not. I rarely if ever use them, when I do the pictures are meh (but that might be me).

I had the Tamron 18-250. It was OK and very convenient but sold it with a K-30 when I got better lenses (and a K-S2 to go with the K-3). Since you have the DA 18-135 and DA 55-300, you really don't need either of these. The only reason to keep either would be as part of a backup or grab-and-go kit with your least used camera (e.g. 18-55 + 70-300, or just the 18-250). I used to leave a kit like that in the car and it was handy for those unexpected moments.

Wondering what would be the lowest I'd accept? I do know they have to resell.KEH says: $33 for Sigma $34 for Tamron (assuming excellent).Almost easier to donate to local camera club (like I did for ME Super) and be done with it.What would Pentaxians do?

donations are goodand good karma can be created thereby

I agree with Allen. My experience too.

At one point, (some 9 years ago) this was my only longer lens so I made do.

Stop it Mark. You're going to make us keep lenses like this that we never use any more, just in case!

[Rondec]

Thank you. At one point, (some 9 years ago) this was my only longer lens so I made do.

Of note is that she also has the DA 55-300mm (not PLM version). If I had the choice between the two I would definitely choose the DA over the Sigma and I can't imagine a situation where I wanted an APS-C telephoto (she doesn't own full frame) where I would choose the Sigma. The only reason to keep the Sigma would be if you need full frame coverage and of course, the 55-300 doesn't provide that coverage.

[madison_wi_gal]

Sigma road test today. Garden center and a field near it. Tried macro for some, hand held (no tripod). Pretty slick. The "Normal" to "Macro" button is cranky though. TAv mode.

EXIF reporting wrong lens, had to use exiftool to even get it to not say 3 (255). This *is* the 70-300.

[biz-engineer]

The lenses I believe are stinkers were designed for the format I'm shooting on, or close to it - so if they don't perform at all well on that format, they're stinkers, regardless of the quality of glass.

Sure, what you get is what you get, with a small sensor camera.

[BigMackCam]

Sure, what you get is what you get, with a small sensor camera.

What you get is what you get with any type, size and resolution of medium... but clearly, what you get with that specific medium differs depending on the lens used. That's what we're talking about here - not the limitations of the medium, but the performance of lenses used with it

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 06-11-2022 at 11:18 PM.

[BigMackCam]

Sigma road test today. Garden center and a field near it. Tried macro for some, hand held (no tripod). Pretty slick. The "Normal" to "Macro" button is cranky though. TAv mode.

Those look just fine to me! A little post-processing could elevate them further... perhaps a gentle WB tweak to warm them up a little, a touch of vibrance or saturation, maybe a small bump to local contrast / "clarity", and you're good to go

I note these shots are all taken at f/11, and whilst there's nothing wrong with that (it may even be where the lens performs best - I don't know), diffraction may be taking a small but detectable toll on detail. If you'd be OK with slightly shallower depth-of-field, you might try opening it up to f/8 (or even a little wider) and see how you get on...

[MarkJerling]

Stop it Mark. You're going to make us keep lenses like this that we never use any more, just in case!

[MarkJerling]

Sigma road test today. Garden center and a field near it. Tried macro for some, hand held (no tripod). Pretty slick. The "Normal" to "Macro" button is cranky though. TAv mode.

EXIF reporting wrong lens, had to use exiftool to even get it to not say 3 (255). This *is* the 70-300.

Nice. And to think the lens was almost gifted or sold!

[biz-engineer]

but clearly, what you get with that specific medium differs depending on the lens used

Of course. Bad lenses are underrated, because people zoom in at 100% on their 27" HD display and see that the lens is not up to their expectations , things look blurred. Now, 100% on HD display that's 2.4 meters wide print, that's 100 x enlargement from an aspc sensor, Ansel Adams would be glad to make 5 x enlargements from film negatives. I have a number of 20x30" (50x75cm) prints from my K200 + 18-250 and they are reasonably sharp, that size is my upper limit for apsc. Now most people say they never print larger than 8x10", 13x19", at those print sizes the 18-250 is certainly worth every $ of its price, especially second hand.

[BigMackCam]

Of course. Bad lenses are underrated, because people zoom in at 100% on their 27" HD display and see that the lens is not up to their expectations , things look blurred. Now, 100% on HD display that's 2.4 meters wide print, that's 100 x enlargement from an aspc sensor, Ansel Adams would be glad to make 5 x enlargements from film negatives. I have a number of 20x30" (50x75cm) prints from my K200 + 18-250 and they are reasonably sharp, that size is my upper limit for apsc. Now most people say they never print larger than 8x10", 13x19", at those print sizes the 18-250 is certainly worth every $ of its price, especially second hand.

Music to my ears, biz. Our thinking is much the same on this matter I'll say again, though, it's about more than "sharpness" and/or resolution - at least, it is for me. Contrast, aberrations, flare performance, out-of-focus rendering - these things matter too. It's unlikely I'd consider a lens to be "bad" just because it isn't especially sharp - but if, for example, the bokeh is unattractive or aberrations at wider apertures are problematic for my use-cases - something you might not encounter much in your own work, as you tend to shoot a lot of landscape with considerable depth-of-field, I presume - then I might feel it's a poor lens... and then I might try and use its "flaws" creatively Of course, when I've tried all that to no avail, I may just conclude it's a stinker

[UncleVanya]

Sigma road test today. Garden center and a field near it. Tried macro for some, hand held (no tripod). Pretty slick. The "Normal" to "Macro" button is cranky though. TAv mode.

EXIF reporting wrong lens, had to use exiftool to even get it to not say 3 (255). This *is* the 70-300.

Nothing wrong with these images. If you like how it handles, and you like the images, you may want to keep it. I’d still suggest comparing it to the da 55-300 you own to see which one you like more. Even if you keep both it will help you decide when to carry each.

[DonV]

Take more exposures; you will get more "good" ones !

[madison_wi_gal]

Those look just fine to me! A little post-processing could elevate them further... perhaps a gentle WB tweak to warm them up a little, a touch of vibrance or saturation, maybe a small bump to local contrast / "clarity", and you're good to go

I note these shots are all taken at f/11, and whilst there's nothing wrong with that (it may even be where the lens performs best - I don't know), diffraction may be taking a small but detectable toll on detail. If you'd be OK with slightly shallower depth-of-field, you might try opening it up to f/8 (or even a little wider) and see how you get on...

Yes, I vacillated between f8 and f11, decided to stick to 11. They were cleaned up on DxO PL first, then sent to DCU and I randomly picked natural or vivid (or whatever looked good). The focus seems soft on all of them, maybe it's me, maybe it was hand shake (did not want to call attention to myself in store with a tripod). The birds def were not focused well, but they were pretty far away.

Next test is the Tamron, similar conditions.