[knumbnutz]

Ok so whos gonna do the test??

Hi All,

I can't wait to see a test between the two of these lenses.

The sigma seems highly regarded from what i have seen so it will be interesting to see how the new DA* holds up against it.

For all sorts of reasons i hope that they are about the same in quality, resolution and mostly - bokeh.

50mm in the long end is negligible, but 50mm in the short end could be very useful, although at F4 you loose some of the usefulness.
Mainly for interested in it for longer distance portraits.

So the million dollar question which one ??

Cheers Neil

[Digitalis]

I"ll wager that such a comparison ultimately will break even. In terms of Flare resistance the Sigma will lose by a significant margin, in terms of build quality they are about equal, though the aesthetics of the Pentax lens are to my eye more appealing(subjective). The Pentax is weather sealed but it uses lens tubes for zooming, The sigma does not change physical length at all because it's all internal (therefore easier to keep things protected by keeping mechanisms all inside the lens) I haven't seen enough to draw any conclusions in regards to resoution I would say that they are both pretty much the same, with a slight edge going to the sigma because it's a full frame lens and we are only using the centre portion of the image circle - and because the sigma is a full frame lens it can be used on film cameras (big advantage to the sigma) now comes the quandary of autofocus, which to me will be a battle of the titans..I personally own a sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG and I will say that is is one of the FASTEST focusing lenses I have used on the Pentax K10D. I think it is safe to say that the sigma will be very tough to beat in this regard.

-and i'm not even considering price.

[jsherman999]

.

From what I have seen from the 60-250 so far, I'll bet resolution and bokeh will be very similar between the two.

The 60-250 is smaller when not extended, meaning it will fit into bags better. 60-100mm is a pretty significant range for everyday shooting, 250-300 not quite as much difference.

I have a Sigma 100-300 in Nikon mount, and I'm also interested in this comparison, although I predict in IQ it will be: draw!


.

[Unlocker]

Have not done an exhaustive test, and I do believe my copy of the Sigma 100-300 F4 to be not a good one (image quality wise), but what I have noticed is that:-

Picture quailty is a lot better on the DA*. I just prefer the pictures, not an expert but the colours it produces are just so much nicer. The Sigma is 'wishy washy' in comparison, colours are weak.

Focussing seems about on a par. Even if the DA* is slower, sometimes the Sigma moves so fast it just will not lock on to anything, which actually slows you down!

The Sigma has better focal length or magnification, not sure which. What I mean by this is if you set both lenses at 200mm say, the Sigma 'gets in closer'. Shooting across the living room , the Sigma 'gets in closer' at 200mm than the DA* gets to at 250mm!!

Now that I have the DA*, I will be sending the Sigma off for a service and a new front element as it was purchased 2nd hand and has some marks on it (shame it wasn't as described when I bought it, but the price was good!). Will do a more thorough test then.

[Digitalis]

Picture quailty is a lot better on the DA*. I just prefer the pictures, not an expert but the colours it produces are just so much nicer. The Sigma is 'wishy washy' in comparison, colours are weak.

that would be because of the lens coatings, I don't like a lot of sigma lenses because of this, I use this lens because it fills a niche that no other lens does.

[farfisa]

The Sigma has better focal length or magnification, not sure which. What I mean by this is if you set both lenses at 200mm say, the Sigma 'gets in closer'. Shooting across the living room , the Sigma 'gets in closer' at 200mm than the DA* gets to at 250mm!!

Thanks for the quick comparison!

So do you mean minimum focusing distance? Like the 16-50 at 50mm lets you get in way closer than the 50-135 does at 50mm?

That would be contrary to the specs on the manufacturers sites--DA* can supposedly focus to within 43.2 inches (between the object and the sensor), versus 70.9 inches for the Sigma. So that's weird!

[GaryM]

that would be because of the lens coatings, I don't like a lot of sigma lenses because of this, I use this lens because it fills a niche that no other lens does.

I don't have a huge amount of experience with Sigma lenses, but the ones that I've owned have typically had very good resolution but not so great flare resistance.

[jsherman999]

Thanks for the quick comparison!

So do you mean minimum focusing distance? Like the 16-50 at 50mm lets you get in way closer than the 50-135 does at 50mm?

That would be contrary to the specs on the manufacturers sites--DA* can supposedly focus to within 43.2 inches (between the object and the sensor), versus 70.9 inches for the Sigma. So that's weird!

No, I think he means that 200mm for non-infinity subjects on the DA may only be about 170mm, where on the Sigma it's maybe 185mm. This is a variable thing on IF zooms - the Pentax/Tamron 18-250 for example is really only an 18-170 or so until you get up to infinity (or close to it) subjects.


.

[farfisa]

No, I think he means that 200mm for non-infinity subjects on the DA may only be about 170mm, where on the Sigma it's maybe 185mm. This is a variable thing on IF zooms - the Pentax/Tamron 18-250 for example is really only an 18-170 or so until you get up to infinity (or close to it) subjects.


.

Thanks Jay! Makes sense now.


...still weird

[Unlocker]

That makes some sense, at about 4ft distance, my 50-135 can get in closer than the 60-250!!

[Torphoto]

my problem is I already have 50-135 covered, I would rather a 120-300 or 150-400 or something like that in constant F4

[Digitalis]

sigma do make a 120-300mm f/2.8 but I have used it, and it easily weight the same as two Pentax 300mm f/2.8's