Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-29-2014, 10:33 AM   #751
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Kentucky
Photos: Albums
Posts: 165
Thanks Paul I missed that Thank you .Worst part I must have listen to this video ten time .

04-29-2014, 12:49 PM   #752
Pentaxian
Mock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Edmonton
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 309
QuoteOriginally posted by pentaxk10duser Quote
In this video the guy talks about how sigma can change the mount to fit different cameras so why can't you buy one for nikon and get then to put on the pentax mount like they say can be done. That way if for some reason the pentax version does not have the sr built in and your still paying the same price as one that does , (because sigma said it cost them more to produce pentax mount lens because they don't sell as many) My guess the pentax version will have to have the sr built into this lens if they are saying the mount can be changed to fit different camera body's.Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Review - a GROUNDBREAKING Lens! - DigiDIRECT TV Ep 036 - YouTube. If this is the case and you can change mounts then why can't you order a lens for a pentax mount right now.
Another thing to point out, since I keep seeing this misconception: Sigma's mount conversion service is only available when the lens has already been released in that mount. It is not a sneaky back-door way to get new Sigma glass in Pentax mount.
04-29-2014, 01:52 PM   #753
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Damn it! Foiled again!
05-06-2014, 09:25 AM   #754
New Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 14
120 - 300 f2.8

QuoteOriginally posted by pentaxk10duser Quote
In this video the guy talks about how sigma can change the mount to fit different cameras ...
.Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Review - a GROUNDBREAKING Lens! - DigiDIRECT TV Ep 036 - YouTube. ...
.
Check 9:15 into the video...
Do you notice that the 120-300 F2.8 is listed as a qualifying lense for Pentax ?

05-06-2014, 09:50 AM   #755
Pentaxian
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 3,247
That IS groundbreaking news, if not a mistake !
05-06-2014, 11:27 AM   #756
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
It's been a mistake a few times. Never seen in the wild.
05-06-2014, 10:20 PM   #757
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Meh.

The reality is that the F/2.8 zooms in Nikon are better than the slower lenses, by and large, even when stopped down.

Personally it'd be tough for me to justify both. Right now I have a 24-85 F/3.5-4.5 and I'm thinking I'll keep that and put the 14-24 f/2.8 under that. The Nikon 14-24 weighs twice as much as the Sigma 8-16 (Pentax) that I have but that Sigma leaves some IQ to be desired. The Sigma FF 12-24 is actually not incredibly good either. I'd really like a 12mm (or 8mm on APS-C). I feel like I'm compromising already at 14mm; 16mm is out of the question.... so it's the 14-24mm or nothing.

Would I prefer a 12-24 F/4? Sure, but it doesn't exist. At least the 14-24 should be fun for some astro stuff.
I have the Nikon 14-24 and it's awesome. I also have the Tamron 24-70, which I thought was far better than the Nikon 24-70 I tested - The Tammy being not so great at 70mm though.

I am finding that my DA*200 is better than my Nikon 70-200 VRII at 200mm. I used both to shoot the lunar eclipse a few weeks ago and it was a no contest. I found myself wishing I still had my FA*300 F4.5.

A few weeks ago I tried Sandy Hancock's DA*300 on his K-3 and felt that it beat my AF-S 300/TC 1.4X combo easily.

My thinking these days:
1: APS-C for macro & Telephoto
2: F1.8 is faster than F2.8 (don't care about the DOF here) and that an f/1.8 lens will allow one stop lower ISO for controlling noise OR a faster shutter speed for the same ISO to control motion. They all have their uses, depending upon your needs.
3: I wish I still had my 60-250
4: I love the size of my FA 77LTD and wish all of my lenses had the same elegance and size. The Sigma 85 is great but it's a monster on a D800e with a battery pack. Carrying Nikon gear and a bag of lenses is a vastly different experience physically to my old Pentax kit and to be honest I reckon I took better pictures with the latter.
05-06-2014, 10:30 PM   #758
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
2: F1.8 is faster than F2.8 (don't care about the DOF here) and that an f/1.8 lens will allow one stop lower ISO for controlling noise OR a faster shutter speed for the same ISO to control motion. They all have their uses, depending upon your needs.
F/1.8 on APS-C is exactly as capable as F/2.8 on FF. Same DOF range, same SNR range. So it's really a straight comparison.

The F/2.8 zooms are generally wider and longer than the F/1.8. I guess the one exception is the olderish Tamron 28-75 that is no wider, but is still longer.

05-07-2014, 05:08 AM - 1 Like   #759
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,651
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
F/1.8 on APS-C is exactly as capable as F/2.8 on FF. Same DOF range, same SNR range. So it's really a straight comparison.
He specifically said he doesn't care about the DOF. So the f1.8 gains him the advantage of faster shutter speed and/or lower ISO. And when you mention SNR, wouldn't that refer to the sensor?
05-07-2014, 06:40 AM   #760
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
It's the same snr. No better, no worse. The iso readout on the ff says a higher number but it allnworks out to be the same (because of equivalence! )
05-07-2014, 10:59 AM   #761
Pentaxian
Mock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Edmonton
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 309
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
It's the same snr. No better, no worse. The iso readout on the ff says a higher number but it allnworks out to be the same (because of equivalence! )
This only serves to confuse people, assuming all else is equal (framing, DOF, etc.), an ISO 100 shot out of a APS-C camera compared to the same out of a FF would be indistinguishable to 99% of us. The fact is, in a situation where an f/2.8 lens will shoot at 1/30s, the f/1.8 will go at 1/80s - a significant advantage.
05-07-2014, 11:23 AM   #762
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area)
Posts: 1,504
For a concept that is supposed to simplify understanding, "equivalence" sure seems to tie a lot of people into knots.

QuoteOriginally posted by Mock Quote
The fact is, in a situation where an f/2.8 lens will shoot at 1/30s, the f/1.8 will go at 1/80s - a significant advantage.
Sure, if you keep ISO the same on both APS-C and FF, that's true. But then your output isn't really equivalent. FF will have a noise advantage and shutter speed disadvantage.

If you want a truly equivalent shot -- FOV/framing the same, DOF the same, noise comparable (assuming similar sensor technology), you need to crank the ISO on the FF camera. And that ends up evening out the shutter speed.
05-07-2014, 01:06 PM   #763
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Mock Quote
This only serves to confuse people, assuming all else is equal (framing, DOF, etc.), an ISO 100 shot out of a APS-C camera compared to the same out of a FF would be indistinguishable to 99% of us. The fact is, in a situation where an f/2.8 lens will shoot at 1/30s, the f/1.8 will go at 1/80s - a significant advantage.
People are indeed quite confused. But your advantage is incorrect. APS-C has no advantage in shutter speed or noise at a given DOF - they're the same.

All else being equal, an F/1.8 -> F16 lens on APS-C will give exactly the same DOF with exactly the same noise with exactly the same shutter speed as a F/2.8-F22 lens on FF.

The differences will be only in the exif, in terms of reported ISO and reported aperture.

So life is easy, and we can choose based on cost, weight, focal range, and other factors.
05-07-2014, 01:16 PM   #764
Pentaxian
Mock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Edmonton
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 309
QuoteOriginally posted by Quicksand Quote
For a concept that is supposed to simplify understanding, "equivalence" sure seems to tie a lot of people into knots.



Sure, if you keep ISO the same on both APS-C and FF, that's true. But then your output isn't really equivalent. FF will have a noise advantage and shutter speed disadvantage.

If you want a truly equivalent shot -- FOV/framing the same, DOF the same, noise comparable (assuming similar sensor technology), you need to crank the ISO on the FF camera. And that ends up evening out the shutter speed.
I'm not tied into a knot, I understand it quite well. I acknowledge that ISO 100 from both camera isn't totally equivalent. I'm arguing that the average photographer looking at the two shots won't be able to tell a difference in the IQ of the image at ISO 100. However, if there is a person walking through the frame, only one of those images (1/30s vs 1/80s) is going to be sharp.

I'm not into discussing a DxO level of sensor geekery, I care about the finished result. In my opinion, if we're comparing APS-C and FF, the noise output is functionally equivalent at base ISO.

If we're comparing FF and a 1 inch or smaller sensor, then there becomes an appreciable difference.

Last edited by Mock; 05-07-2014 at 01:23 PM.
05-07-2014, 01:21 PM   #765
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Mock Quote
I'm not tied into a knot, I understand it quite well. I acknowledge that ISO 100 from both camera isn't TOTALLY equivalent. I'm arguing that the average photographer looking at the two shots won't be able to tell a difference in the IQ of the image at ISO 100. However, if there is a person walking through the frame, only one of those images (1/30s vs 1/80s) is going to be sharp.

I'm not into discussing a DxO level of sensor geekery, I care about the finished result. In my opinion, if we're comparing APS-C and FF, the noise output is functionally equivalent at base ISO.

If we're comparing FF and a 1 inch or smaller sensor, then there becomes an appreciable difference.
Functionally equivalent? Maybe. But at 'equivalent-equivalent', the noise is exactly the same.



Dr. Camera
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!
18-35mm, angles, aperture, cameras, canikon, canon, dc, f/2.8, f1.8, fisheye, hsm, iso, k-3, landscape, length, lens, lenses, motor, mounts, nikon, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, review, sigma, sigma 18-35mm f1.8, sr, uk, zeiss
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sigma 35mm F1.4 for Pentax: ETA 4/30 Adam Pentax News and Rumors 181 02-16-2014 06:44 PM
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 detail. rlatjsrud Photographic Industry and Professionals 42 10-06-2013 01:41 PM
New Sigma 18-35 F1.8 APS-C yygomez Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 04-19-2013 04:11 PM
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 08:45 AM. | 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