[guillermovilas]

So here are my 2 first pics taken with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4

The first one is taken at 1/90s & f/2.0

The second one at 1/125s & f/1.4

Looks pretty sharp to me.No post treatment except for the B&W batch
Still experimenting , i`ll send plenty more

---

Last edited by guillermovilas; 04-24-2007 at 04:55 PM.

[guillermovilas]

Here is one taken at 1/3000s & f/1.7

[guillermovilas]

Heu by the way , sorry you guys but i just love to shoot in B&W

[Clem Nichols]

Certainly your second picture, the one shot of the lady at 1/124 and f/1.4 bears out what I have read about the extremely shallow depth of field of the Sigma f/1.4. Her left cheeck is in focus, and her right cheek is slightly blurred. Similarly with her necklace at f/2. I wonder if this is an inherent quality in a lens of this focal length and speed.

[Jonas B]

It looks good so far. Thank you.

[SCGushue]

I think you`ll never see one , f/2.8 is as good as they get and i believe a zoom cannot be as sharp as a fixed focal lens .

They cannot optimize lens quality right through all the range

What do you think ?

While this may be true as a generalization it is not in fact true in real life. High quality zooms with modest (1:2, 1:3) zoom ranges are quite capable of matching even high end primes.

Prime afficianados will scream...never!...but the reality is that there are zooms that can span the range of their mm's with prime quality across virtually the entire range. If one reads lens reviews carefully and without any bias that fact becomes most evident.

I like primes, use primes and want more primes. But I have learned to be very selective on my zooms and know that they can rival and even surpass their single focal length brethren in some cases.

I have said this before, but, recent surveys of professional photographers reveal that 90% of pros use zooms 90% of the time. That must say something about the quality of today's high end zooms. So, while there is apparently a place for primes...there is a bigger place for quality zooms.

Fast primes....will always have a niche that will be reserved for their exclusivity

Stephen

[SCGushue]

Certainly your second picture, the one shot of the lady at 1/124 and f/1.4 bears out what I have read about the extremely shallow depth of field of the Sigma f/1.4. Her left cheeck is in focus, and her right cheek is slightly blurred. Similarly with her necklace at f/2. I wonder if this is an inherent quality in a lens of this focal length and speed.

Clem,
Your last line is the ultimate line in fast lenses.

As with every single aspect of photography when something is gained something is lost. The physics of light is finite and every action has a reaction. In the case in point the optical characteristics to gather light require a configuration that deminishes DOF. There is no way around it.

It lies in a parallel uninverse right next to the one housing shutter speed and aperature values.
And that universe parallels the universe where ISO and available light live.

Stephen

[Clem Nichols]

Does anyone have or know of any comparison of this lens with the Sigma 28mm f/1.8 lens or the Pentax-FA 35mm F2 AL? Both of these would seem to be reasonable choices for a low-light "normal" lens.

[guillermovilas]

While this may be true as a generalization it is not in fact true in real life. High quality zooms with modest (1:2, 1:3) zoom ranges are quite capable of matching even high end primes.

Prime afficianados will scream...never!...but the reality is that there are zooms that can span the range of their mm's with prime quality across virtually the entire range. If one reads lens reviews carefully and without any bias that fact becomes most evident.

I like primes, use primes and want more primes. But I have learned to be very selective on my zooms and know that they can rival and even surpass their single focal length brethren in some cases.

I have said this before, but, recent surveys of professional photographers reveal that 90% of pros use zooms 90% of the time. That must say something about the quality of today's high end zooms. So, while there is apparently a place for primes...there is a bigger place for quality zooms.

Fast primes....will always have a niche that will be reserved for their exclusivity

Stephen

Yep , you are right.
But i think everybody uses the zooms mainly because it`s so convenient to have just one lens on for everything.
A few weeks ago i went and made pics of a friends wedding and there was a professional photographer there , guess what he used ?
A Canon 30D with a 17-85 zoom.

I see you are convinced that there are zooms out there that can match and even surpass a prime lens and through there intire range , well can you name me a few please ?

[guillermovilas]

Clem,
Your last line is the ultimate line in fast lenses.

As with every single aspect of photography when something is gained something is lost. The physics of light is finite and every action has a reaction. In the case in point the optical characteristics to gather light require a configuration that deminishes DOF. There is no way around it.

It lies in a parallel uninverse right next to the one housing shutter speed and aperature values.
And that universe parallels the universe where ISO and available light live.

Stephen

Well again you are so much right Steven.

It is obvious that you are a good photographer , just by reading your lines , you do explain simply and clearly the real facts of photography.
All makes such good sense.

[mattdm]

I have said this before, but, recent surveys of professional photographers reveal that 90% of pros use zooms 90% of the time. That must say something about the quality of today's high end zooms. So, while there is apparently a place for primes...there is a bigger place for quality zooms.

I think that what it says is that zooms are good enough to get things done, but even more, that photography marketing is oddly over-obsessed with "pro" this and "pro" that.

No disrespect to our resident professionals, whose comments and advice I value very much, but "I do this for my job" isn't necessarily the pinnacle of the field. If you look at another medium, like pen-and-ink drawing, it's not the people doing illustrations for magazines and billboards to whom everyone else aspires. I'm just sayin'.

[SCGushue]

I think that what it says is that zooms are good enough to get things done, but even more, that photography marketing is oddly over-obsessed with "pro" this and "pro" that.

No disrespect to our resident professionals, whose comments and advice I value very much, but "I do this for my job" isn't necessarily the pinnacle of the field. If you look at another medium, like pen-and-ink drawing, it's not the people doing illustrations for magazines and billboards to whom everyone else aspires. I'm just sayin'.

Matt,

I think, if we are in agreement, that there is too much pro this and that on many of the forums...not just the Pentax forums.

My purpose of pointing out the quality of zooms and their widespread use among professionals is multipointed.

First, and most obvious...the numbers don't lie. They are used and they do deliver the goods to the client. And one must assume (though not always) that a client paying for an end product is proficient and exacting in what they are paying for.

Secondly, the computerization of lens manufacturing in todays environment produces largely high end goods. But, when applied to zooms there has been a quantum level increase in quality...especially at the high end (technically and cost wise) of the spectrum. It is where the money is in today's lens market.

And thirdly, being a prime lens does not by any means mean a lens is of excellent or superior quality. Quite frankly, many are at best fair to good. A prime lens in and of itself is not a promise of excellence. No lens is.

And the most obvious issue with any lens, zoom or prime, is that at whatever level of qualityof the lens, the output by the person behind the camera, and their ability to manipulate the lens, light, and composition will determine 95+% of the impact of the image.

I personally do not consider a zoom until I have studied it's resolution figures, distortions and aberrations. If they can't stack up with single focal lengths they won't even get a chance to be tested by me.

My hope is that Pentax's output on their new DA* is better than Tokina's equivalent... which doesn't get particularly high marks on the bench. But if you look at similar models co-designed by Pentax and Tokina (10-17, 12-24 off the top of my head) they generally get the same score from reviewers even though there are differences in bench outputs. And those marks are generally not that great.
We'll know in three or so weeks what the DA* zooms should be able to do.

Stephen

[little laker]

There are some days when I'll only use my Pentax 50mm f/1.2.
When you use a fixed range lens it really doesn't take long to figure out exactly where to stop for the best resulting pic. Although your usually kinda messed if a bird flies overhead that you want to photograph.

[blende8]

The only real problem of the Sigma 30mm is that is has a rather large field curvature.
Let's say you want to photograph a door filling the frame with the focus on the door knob. Then, with the Sigma the top and the bottom of the door are not in focus any more. I have seen examples of this.
For portrait this is normally no problem.
If this curvature is inevitable for such a lens, I don't know.

[pleo]

A few weeks ago i went and made pics of a friends wedding and there was a professional photographer there , guess what he used ?
A Canon 30D with a 17-85 zoom.

I see you are convinced that there are zooms out there that can match and even surpass a prime lens and through there intire range , well can you name me a few please ?

I know a pro who is using the Canon 28-300.... saying that the quality is 'good enough' but if he's lacking a shot because he's just switching body/lens....
In the old film-slr days a saw a pro making wedding shots simply with a Canon 35-70-lens.

As for your question:
The Pentax FA* 2.8/80-200 is told to be such a lens.

Never had this giant but had the 1.4/85 and still ahve the 2.8/200 and I'm wondering myself....