[ll_coffee_lP]

Sigma haters are hilarious.

I love both my Sigma's, and if it wasn't for a 43mm on it's way to me I'd be UPgrading my FA50 to a Sigma 50/1.4 as well.

85mm interests me as well, but I'm enamoured by my 77mm too much to ever get rid of it. I like that there's an option though that isn't going to be outrageously priced (FA*/A*), or cheap and MF (Samyang/Vivitar).

Good job Sigma!

c[_]

[Pentaxor]

Not certain why everyone thinks that these will be cheap lenses , aka Samyang. Sigma makes some very expensive lenses. I would say that the Sigma 85 f1.4 will probably come in at 800 or 850, considering the current price of Nikon 85mm f1.4 and Canon 85mm f1.2. Sigma sells cheap lenses, but they are the kind of lenses that you'd like to up grade as quickly as possible.

Too bad that they are releasing these lenses with optical stabilization for K mount. From what I understand, this can significantly degrade image quality at times.

as a 3rd-party lens, I think it would be wise for them to compete by selling half or even less than half than what the other lens manufacturer are selling. there are a few great Sigmas that are as good or better than the "L" lenses that are sold cheaper.

although, I don't wanna be pessimistic about the OS system degrading the IQ. as far as I know, the most common problem that we encounter is soft images caused by camera shake.

I believe that with the introduction of an additional OS system which hopefully could contribute to the already existing Pentax SR system, would make it possible to go at 6.5-8 stops slower and thus eliminating much of the necessity of a tripod during walkarounds. I do hate carrying excess weight and baggage. and the luxury of having to use as low as 1 sec or less handheld.

as far as IQ is concerned, I think that the new optical design and construction looks promising. and is a stop-up from the previous design.

if it is true that the initial reports say that these new lenses would be sold at an affordable price, I have hoped that these would cost less than a 1,000.

[Arpe]

I would buy the 70-200 IF they produced a HSM/SDM compatible 1.4x TC.

In the mean time I stick with my non-DG, non-macro, non-HSM version of the lens and TCs.

[lesmore49]

You don't mention the new Sigma 8-16 mm and the revised 50-500 mm Sigma's...both of which I'm considering after I see how they test out...the Bigma is pricey...but for Pentax it's the only new game in town for super telephoto zoom....wide angle..ditto situation.

[creampuff]

...
Sigma, frankly, impresses the hell out of me these days. Take a look:

Sigma 30 1.4: maybe AF accuracy problems, maybe not - if not, brilliant.
Sigma 50 1.4: Made Nikon fanboys cry like little girls.
Sigma 70 2.8 macro: Possibly sharpest macro on the market
Sigma 150 2.8 macro: Pentaxians cry like schoolgirls that this is not available. Brilliant.
Sigma 50-150 2.8 HSM II: Fast, sharp, contrast, colors beyond the rainbow.
Sigma 100-300 f4 HSM: It leads it's class. So sharp wide open you don't need f/5.

And now these new lenses... Kudos, Sigma.

While I'm happy there are more lenses to choose from, not every lens from Sigma is as great as you put it. Sure some lenses from Sigma are clear winners (the macro lenses for one) but from my past experience with Sigma lenses, Sigma QC can be like a roll of the dice. AF accuracy issues have been found on the 30mm and 50mm. As good as the 30mm is it is easily pwned by the more expensive FA 31mm Ltd and that 50mm isn't altogether a hot performer in the corners. The 50-150mm isn't great at close focusing distances while a few of the fast wideangles can be flare prone. So like any camera/lens maker, not everything in the lineup are automatic winners. But overall, more choice is good.

[dadipentak]

Will you buy, depending on price and reviews?

I don't think so--I'm content with the 77mm Ltd (but you never know when I'll decide for some reason that I just gotta have some lens or other.)

[rparmar]

I don't think so--I'm content with the 77mm Ltd

Ah yes, I am "content" too, if content means "this is the last lens I would ever sell." Of course if the Sigma is all-metal construction with the same minute dimensions and weight as the FA77, I will certainly be interested in comparing IQ.

but it's an 85mm where it's reach is much more preferable for portraiture. and it's much faster than the 77 that it could render much better with regards to subject isolation and brighter as well.

Well, let's not get too excited. We're talking 19.3 degrees versus 21.2 which is 9% more "reach". That's not "much more". If you can't shoot a portrait with 77mm then 85mm is not going to magically make things better.

Another stop sure is nice though. But unless the lens is as sharp as the FA77 is at the same apertures, I wouldn't care much. This from someone with two different f/1.2 lenses.

After all, consistency is more important than extreme measurements for someone trying to make a living with portraits (I am not). Any pro would do fine with the DA*50-135 and it's only f/2.8. But that's plenty of subject/background separation, and you just might have the subject's nose in focus at the same time as their eyes.

[asdf]

Sigma 50 1.4: Made Nikon fanboys cry like little girls.

Because they saw the ugly onion ring bokeh? The Sigma is often unusable between f/1.4 and f/1.9. In controlled situations, it's good, but it shouldn't be the only fast 50 in one's arsenal (if your budget has space for more lenses).

Sigma 85? I'd start saving for Carl Zeiss 85.

[Pentaxor]

While I'm happy there are more lenses to choose from, not every lens from Sigma is as great as you put it. Sure some lenses from Sigma are clear winners (the macro lenses for one) but from my past experience with Sigma lenses, Sigma QC can be like a roll of the dice. AF accuracy issues have been found on the 30mm and 50mm. As good as the 30mm is it is easily pwned by the more expensive FA 31mm Ltd and that 50mm isn't altogether a hot performer in the corners. The 50-150mm isn't great at close focusing distances while a few of the fast wideangles can be flare prone. So like any camera/lens maker, not everything in the lineup are automatic winners. But overall, more choice is good.

true, but I would take a 50-50 chance plus the luxury of a 10 year warranty rather than taking chances with the inevitable Pentax DA* zooms with a limited warranty. having a decade of warranty does somehow boost your chances and confidence in the lens and the company's dedication to their customers. besides, those issues won't take about a year before you get yourself a good and functioning copy. rather than having a good copy that would turn into a crap after a year.

[Pentaxor]

Well, let's not get too excited. We're talking 19.3 degrees versus 21.2 which is 9% more "reach". That's not "much more". If you can't shoot a portrait with 77mm then 85mm is not going to magically make things better.

Another stop sure is nice though. But unless the lens is as sharp as the FA77 is at the same apertures, I wouldn't care much. This from someone with two different f/1.2 lenses.

After all, consistency is more important than extreme measurements for someone trying to make a living with portraits (I am not). Any pro would do fine with the DA*50-135 and it's only f/2.8. But that's plenty of subject/background separation, and you just might have the subject's nose in focus at the same time as their eyes.

I did say that if ever it has the same sharpness or better than the 77mm at the same aperture, then definitely it's a no contest, especially if both lenses sell for the same price.

as far as background separation is concerned, the DA* is capable of such but still some people are looking for a particular look that an f2.8 lens could not render. I'm not yet ready to jump on a 3-5 lens setup, nor am I willing to bet my money on the DA* zooms. but when the time comes when f2.8 is enough for me, I would go put my money on the new Sigma. most people already know what they are risking if they get the SDM lens. atleast for the Sigma, I'm more than happy that 3/4 of my body isn't buried under the ground.

[asdf]

I did say that if ever it has the same sharpness or better than the 77mm at the same aperture, then definitely it's a no contest, especially if both lenses sell for the same price.

Look also at the bokeh. Some of these new designs produce very ugly results. Sigma 50 f/1.4 produces very ugly photos with points of light in the background (at f/1.4~f/1.9). I wouldn't take it out at night.

[Pentaxor]

Look also at the bokeh. Some of these new designs produce very ugly results. Sigma 50 f/1.4 produces very ugly photos with points of light in the background (at f/1.4~f/1.9). I wouldn't take it out at night.

I have seen this a couple of times. and for me, I couldn't care less about onions. however, speaking of new designs, eventhough the Sigma 50 is about a year old, it doesn't have the same optical design that the newly announced lenses would have. who knows, you might not see these onions on the new versions.

[asdf]

who knows, you might not see these onions on the new versions.

Sure. BTW, they're creeping up everywhere.

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] VC (Canon) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Scroll down to bokeh samples.

[Pentaxor]

Sure. BTW, they're creeping up everywhere.

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] VC (Canon) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Scroll down to bokeh samples.

I think the Tamron is older than the Sigma. and I don't find it that significantly distracting nor important enough too be given real attention.

[asdf]

I think the Tamron is older than the Sigma.

That's the new VC version.