Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-23-2013, 12:38 PM   #136
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,103
QuoteOriginally posted by LeRolls Quote
Totally agree. The limiteds are a perfect match for the K-01. That Sigma is a nice performer but just too big for my style of shooting.
My Fujinon 35/1.4 makes the Pentax 31/1.8 look like a large, heavy monster. It's all relative.

05-23-2013, 01:43 PM   #137
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Actually, I was talking about OOF gradation which relies on a focal point and accuracy therein.

That Sigma is freakin' HUGE.

Sigma = the Hummer of lens makers.
It's a FF lens with f/1.4 and HSM motor.
05-23-2013, 03:01 PM - 1 Like   #138
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by djrocks66 Quote
You are part right but if you wanted to get the same shallow DOF as a Full frame with a 50mm 1.2 lens you would have to use a 31mm f 0.8 lens on a 1.6 crop factor camera. Good luck with that.
50mm F/1.2 lenses were designed for low light use (not necessarily shallow DOF) and frankly, I am getting sick of all these photo's of sharp eyelashes surrounded by a sea of blur. Like amateur painters, many photographers get caught up with fancy effects rather than context. Art is about meaning and not how fuzzy your backgrounds are. How many of the people posting on these forums ask themselves what the shot actually means?
05-23-2013, 03:12 PM   #139
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
And I showed you the link to the Photozone's Bokeh test that the 35/1.4G was worse than the Sigma. So how can you be complaining about it, I wonder. I don't have a lot of shots with this lens yet but it's bokeh looks to be about average for a *wide angle* lens. I have about 35 different lenses from brands such as Pentax, Zeiss, Schneider, Nikon, Mamiya and Fujinon. And these examples are no worse or better than any shot from any of them.
I owned the Sigma 35 for 4 days and shot many side-by-side shots with my 35G and came to the conclusion that the Sigma was great wide-open but that it's transition to OOF was abysmal. It was so bad on some images I thought the lens must surely have been faulty. I don't need photozone to tell me what lens I need for my purposes. I will upload a few shots later today to illustrate what I mean.

05-23-2013, 03:15 PM   #140
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 193
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
50mm F/1.2 lenses were designed for low light use (not necessarily shallow DOF) and frankly, I am getting sick of all these photo's of sharp eyelashes surrounded by a sea of blur. Like amateur painters, many photographers get caught up with fancy effects rather than context. Art is about meaning and not how fuzzy your backgrounds are. How many of the people posting on these forums ask themselves what the shot actually means?
I was not talking about artistic approach but rather commenting on the post that sensor size doesn't make a difference with shallow DOF with the same lens when it obviously does. Just because you are sick of certain shots doesn't mean that everyone else is... so be open minded... or not.
05-23-2013, 03:32 PM   #141
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,103
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
I owned the Sigma 35 for 4 days and shot many side-by-side shots with my 35G and came to the conclusion that the Sigma was great wide-open but that it's transition to OOF was abysmal. It was so bad on some images I thought the lens must surely have been faulty. I don't need photozone to tell me what lens I need for my purposes. I will upload a few shots later today to illustrate what I mean.
That will be great. I'll be doing more bokeh tests of this Sigma too. So far these are the only ones I've taken and I reserve judgement on it till a later time.
05-23-2013, 03:47 PM   #142
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by djrocks66 Quote
I was not talking about artistic approach but rather commenting on the post that sensor size doesn't make a difference with shallow DOF with the same lens when it obviously does. Just because you are sick of certain shots doesn't mean that everyone else is... so be open minded... or not.
I am open minded. That's why I have a degree in fine arts.
05-23-2013, 03:58 PM   #143
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 193
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
I am open minded. That's why I have a degree in fine arts.
Ok...

05-23-2013, 04:03 PM   #144
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,832
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
That's why I have a degree in fine arts.
Hey, makes two of us [art history/aesthetics].
Whaddaya know.
05-23-2013, 04:09 PM   #145
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,832
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
There is more than one Hummer on the road too. Look at the Zeiss 35/1.4
Also look at the SamYang 35 f1.4. It's a big beast too.
05-23-2013, 07:23 PM   #146
Pentaxian
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,524
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Also look at the SamYang 35 f1.4. It's a big beast too.
Makes you wonder why no one can duplicate these small lenses. Every lens is larger than their older film day counter parts... I get that. but so massively larger?
05-23-2013, 07:37 PM   #147
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,332
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
Makes you wonder why no one can duplicate these small lenses. Every lens is larger than their older film day counter parts... I get that. but so massively larger?
OIS? Probably. Aspherical elements? Maybe. A greater number of elements? Probably. Closer focussing? Don't know.

The OIS would account for much of the increase in diameter, and the addition of a greater number of elements would account for length increases, but I would have though aspherical elements might have decreased the total element count.
As for closer focussing, someone with greater understanding than I have might advise here.
05-23-2013, 08:20 PM   #148
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
My Fujinon 35/1.4 makes the Pentax 31/1.8 look like a large, heavy monster. It's all relative.
You want relative size?

Watch this:


We all need a little perspective and science stuff.
05-23-2013, 08:24 PM   #149
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
50mm F/1.2 lenses were designed for low light use (not necessarily shallow DOF) and frankly, I am getting sick of all these photo's of sharp eyelashes surrounded by a sea of blur. Like amateur painters, many photographers get caught up with fancy effects rather than context. Art is about meaning and not how fuzzy your backgrounds are. How many of the people posting on these forums ask themselves what the shot actually means?
I saw an ad in an old photo magazine (wish I'd kept it) advertising a new Canon 1.2 or 1.4 lens, and it showed how it could soften features because some films made them so harsh. Something like that.

Back in the day photo editing was extremely costly and required a very skilled hand, and the hard edged look was seen as unflattering. Faster glass was after softer images with a halo effect, so the pre-press people had what they needed right out of the can.
05-23-2013, 08:25 PM   #150
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
Makes you wonder why no one can duplicate these small lenses. Every lens is larger than their older film day counter parts... I get that. but so massively larger?
In a compound word: autofocus.

The F 28/35/50's are about as small as you can get with fast glass and aperture irises and still get an AF helicoid in there with stability.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
eta, lens, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, sigma, sigma 35mm f1.4
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-30 with Sigma 50-150 f2.8, Sigma 30 f1.4 metalmania Sold Items 7 12-14-2012 12:59 AM
35 mm macro pentax, 30mm sigma, Samyang 35mm f1.4 SigB Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 34 11-30-2012 11:40 AM
Sigma 30 f1.4 - HSM? ohyouloveme Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 10-04-2011 11:48 AM
Pentax 35mm F2.4 AL DA L Lens vs Sigma 28mm f1.8 Aspherical orchid Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 04-22-2011 12:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top