Not long ago, I got a copy of the original 1979 Sigma f3.5-4 21-35mm. For my first tests, moments after it arrived in the mail, I employed my K10D. It was a cloudy day and the K10D's cropped sensor steals its ultrawideangledness, but the results, all shot with the lens wide open, were promising:
(these two are cross-posted in another thread)
Then, I next put it on my Sears (Ricoh) KSX loaded with a roll of Kodak Ultramax 400, restoring the ultra wide angle possibilities;
(At least two of these three are cross-posted in other threads.)
The lens really has no "macro"/close-focusing ability, beyond that it can focus on subjects rather near. The only way to increase magnification is to turn to the 35mm focal length . Since it is hard to get anything unrecognizably out-of-focus even with the lens wide open (first example below, from the K10D tests), true bokeh isn't possible, but near and far can certainly be separated:
The second of this group is taken at f8 at the closest focusing distance for the post on the side of the barn. The third example of the group, taken at f5.6, was taken from as low as I wanted to bend over the bed of daffodils, not a great flower macro shot, but they were the very first flowers I had seen by that point in this unseasonably warm late winter.
(Only the first of this set of three has been cross-posted.)
I'm very pleased with the lens so far. I will probably shoot a roll of slower black-and-white film with the lens next. Converting some of the Kodak Ultramax 400 scans to BW gives some prediction of what might be possible:
(Cross-posted)
We have one review of this lens here at PF:
Sigma 21-35mm F/3.5 - 4 Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
From what I have read, the second version of this lens, the f3.5-4.2 released only a few years later, is much more common, and not many years after that was an AF version. Do other participants in this thread have THIS original version I have? Do post a sample picture if you want to tell about your copy of this version in reply to this post.
.
.
.