[Pentaxor]

That's the new VC version.

yeah, and it came out earlier than the Sigma 50/1.4.

[asdf]

yeah, and it came out earlier than the Sigma 50/1.4.

Not according to reality.

Tamron launches stabilized 17-50mm F2.8 zoom: Digital Photography Review

Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

[Alfisti]

I am dead set certain the Tamron came out well before the sigma.

Is there a thread on the new samsung? I can't find it anywhere.

[asdf]

I am dead set certain the Tamron came out well before the sigma.

Is there a thread on the new samsung? I can't find it anywhere.

"Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one." -- Voltaire.

I'm talking about the image stabilized lens.

Tamron launches stabilized 17-50mm F2.8 zoom: Digital Photography Review

[jsherman999]

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.

.

I shot with the Sigma 50 1.4 on my D90 for a while, and I'd have to concur with dpreview:

When Sigma first announced the 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM in March, our story headline (courtesy of our news editor and punmeister-in-chief) was 'A new standard?', and this has turned out to be remarkably prescient. This new lens essentially redefines its class, and for once the results really live up to the marketing hype; compared to previous designs, we see significantly improved sharpness at large apertures (presumably due to a reduction in aberrations through the use of an aspherical element), and substantially lower vignetting due to that that oversized lens barrel. Chromatic aberration (both axial and lateral) has been impressively minimized, and distortion is low - in optical terms there's simply little to fault.

Compared to the Nikon 50 1.4:

Anyone reading this review shortly after that of the Canon EF 50mm F.4 USM will surely be experiencing an uncanny sense of deja vu; the two lenses' characteristics and performance are remarkably similar, as we might expect from designs of similar vintage and optical formula from two of the leading camera manufacturers. Once again we see a lens which is outclassed at wider apertures by the brand new Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM....
....
Sharpness wide open is nothing to write home about (due to spherical aberration), and this is particularly problematic on DX; however it does improve quickly on stopping down, and that fast maximum aperture at least allows you to get the shot in marginal conditions (it's also worth considering that with the remarkable high-ISO performance of modern DSLRs, you'll rarely need to shoot wide open anyway). The lens also displays considerable vignetting on FX when using wide apertures, although again this diminishes rapidly on stopping down, and it also suffers from slight barrel distortion on FX, which could be visually disturbing in some circumstances. If these are important factors, the new Sigma will likely be the better buy, with its aspheric element and oversized lens barrel - but of course these improvements command a considerable price premium.

Nikonians cried foul, and tried to find weaknesses like the 'onion bokeh in specular highlights' problem, but then finally had to fold up the tent when the Sigma bokeh proved to be superior in portrait applications, when Thom Hogan and others declared it a better lens, etc, etc.

That's what I was referring to with my 'Made Nikonians cry like little girls' comment. Of course, now many of then have grown up a bit regarding this lens and are behaving like mature young teen-aged girls. Although the presence of this new 70-200 and 85 will probably send them into a needed 'time-out' again pretty soon.




.

[asdf]

.Nikonians cried foul, and tried to find weaknesses like the 'onion bokeh in specular highlights' problem, but then finally had to fold up the tent when the Sigma bokeh proved to be superior in portrait applications, when Thom Hogan and others declared it a better lens, etc, etc.
.

I own the Sigma and I wouldn't take it out at night or when there are points of light in the background. End of story. There really is no need for bizarre polemic. Nikonians have the new AF-S version as well. Here's what dpreview had to say about the AF-S version (if you like argumentum ad verecundiam and quote mining):

"Naturally many potential buyers will also be comparing the lens to Sigma's 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM, and the choice between the two is far from straightforward...But for anyone looking for the best possible image quality across the whole range of apertures, especially on FX, the Nikon is a hugely attractive option."

[dugrant153]

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

Sigma lenses are very good lenses if you get a good copy. If they made the Sigma 30mm f1.4 in HSM for Pentax format... imagine:

Sigma 10-20 F3.5 HSM
Sigma 30mm F1.4 HSM
Sigma 50mm F1.4 HSM
Sigma 85mm F1.4 HSM
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 HSM OS

This would be my absolute killer line up.

That being said, I really like the way high end Pentax lenses renders images. There's just something about them that makes them unique, high quality and (at their size) make other camera makers jealous. I just got the FA77 and it is a definite keeper. "Leica-like" is what I've heard. Score.

[Pentaxor]

Not according to reality.

Tamron launches stabilized 17-50mm F2.8 zoom: Digital Photography Review

Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

ok, I checked it out and it's a new Tamron. but again, this is a Tamron and not a Sigma, so we can't draw a conclusion from a different lens.

however,, irregardless of whether the new Sigma does or doesn't display the onion rings, it is not a big deal for me nor of any relevance whatsoever. my point of interests aren't focused on looking on the minute things that are inside a bokeh circle, but more on what is the image of real interest in general. I'm much more critical when it comes to distortion and CA which are strongly noticeable and affects the image in a massive scale which are points of concern. onion rings are not that of any real concern, in my personal view.

[Jewelltrail]

asdf: There really is no need for bizarre polemic.

Polemic, from the Greek, "polemikos," meaning hostile, from "polemos," meaning war. In English, in noun form, it can have either of 2 meanings:

1) a controversial argument, particularly when doctrine is attacked

2) a person engaged, or inclined towards controversy

Now, as for definition #1, to have an argument you need at least two parties. That rules out your use of the word. So, you must have in mind, definition 2 for your use of the word polemic here..

Indeed, there is one tendentious being who inhabits this forum, inclined towards engaging controversy. So, I guess, in other words, you are saying there be no need for your bizarre presence at this forum? Am I correct, or do you just not understand how to use the word properly in a sentence?

"Tendentious writing reveals a troubled soul."

[RawheaD]

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.

I don't *think* they'd be cheap lenses; answering the OP's question, I'm saying I'd buy if it *were* cheap (as in < $500US). Because if it's going to be $750-$1000, I'd rather get a Zeiss/Planar 85/1.4 for a similar price tag. I absolutely KNOW it will have better IQ, and I really couldn't care less for AF/HSM when it will, without a doubt, be useless on my K-7 shooting it wide open––I'd have to manual focus anyway, and I would never go smaller than F2.

And when it comes to F1.4-F2, the Samyang performs just dandy, making a switch *up* to the Sigma 85/1.4 that much less attractive.

[RawheaD]

Its true

This Pentaxian will cry over no macro lens available on any mount. I have the CV Macro Apo-Lanthar :-)

[Diffusion]

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.

No, no, no. It is one or the other. Both will actually interfere badly with each other.
Basically, OS is most interesting for long lenses.

[Rondec]

No, no, no. It is one or the other. Both will actually interfere badly with each other.
Basically, OS is most interesting for long lenses.

This is true with Olympus and Sony, but interestingly, it seems like with Pentax, the two don't get in the way of each other. Not sure if they are actually working simultaneously. It would make sense if when the lens OS is on, the sensor SR would switch off.

[Pentaxor]

This is true with Olympus and Sony, but interestingly, it seems like with Pentax, the two don't get in the way of each other. Not sure if they are actually working simultaneously. It would make sense if when the lens OS is on, the sensor SR would switch off.

does it somehow defy logic if they were suppose to do that? I mean create an OS lens for a system that already have an SR but you can only use one of them? what were they suppose to achieve with that? unless Sigma was thinking that removing the OS feature in the new lens would be a tougher task than designing a K-mounting.

but still, it doesn't make any sense if Sigma can't work it simultaneously with the Pentax dslr's SR. sure OS is a nice lens feature, but only for a camera that doesn't have SR. choosing between two stabilization feature for use doesn't quite add up. is Sigma trying to preserve the lens as it is and sell those lenses irregardless of mounting at the same price? I can understand if Sigma has that reason, but pointless if you can't use the feature in conjunction with an existing camera SR.

it's is like choosing between using white or brown sugar in your coffee.

[Diffusion]

The "logic" is price. An "OS" lens sells for more than no "OS".
Also, some people argue that lens stabilization is better. The consensus appears to be that for long lenses, lens stabilization is better, because any movement is grossly exaggerated on the sensor, and the movement speed and accuracy become an issue.
Regarding the idea that SR and OS play nicely... How would that be possible? The SR measures how much the body moves around, and compensates. But it does not see that OS is active, so it compensates the motion, which has already been cancelled out by OS. It actually introduces shake.

And yes, the main reason why they offer it for Pentax is because they already offer it for Canon and Nikon. Much larger volumes, and OS is needed there. Taking out all the optical elements associated with OS, and you might as well redesign the lens.
Fortunately, you can turn OS off on the lens, or SR on the camera.