Sigma 35mm F1.4 for Pentax: ETA 4/30

tuco · 05-23-2013, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by LeRolls

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.

vodanh1982 · 05-23-2013, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

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.

bossa · 05-23-2013, 03:01 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by djrocks66

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?

bossa · 05-23-2013, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by tuco

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.

djrocks66 · 05-23-2013, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by bossa

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.

tuco · 05-23-2013, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by bossa

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.

bossa · 05-23-2013, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by djrocks66

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.

djrocks66 · 05-23-2013, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by bossa

I am open minded. That's why I have a degree in fine arts.

Ok...

rawr · 05-23-2013, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by bossa

That's why I have a degree in fine arts.

Hey, makes two of us [art history/aesthetics].
Whaddaya know.

rawr · 05-23-2013, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by tuco

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.

Wired · 05-23-2013, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by rawr

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?

**RobA_Oz** · 05-23-2013, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Wired

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.

**Aristophanes** · 05-23-2013, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by tuco

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:

You Tube

We all need a little perspective and science stuff.

**Aristophanes** · 05-23-2013, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by bossa

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.

**Aristophanes** · 05-23-2013, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Wired

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.

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

05-23-2013, 12:38 PM	#136
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by LeRolls 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
vodanh1982 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 126	Originally posted by Aristophanes 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
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by djrocks66 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
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by tuco 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
djrocks66 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 194	Originally posted by bossa 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
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by bossa 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
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by djrocks66 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
djrocks66 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 194	Originally posted by bossa I am open minded. That's why I have a degree in fine arts. Ok...

05-23-2013, 04:03 PM	#144
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by bossa 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
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by tuco 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
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	Originally posted by rawr 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
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,197	Originally posted by Wired 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, 08:24 PM	#149
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by bossa 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
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Wired 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.