[Rondec]

Why the sarcasm? Isn't it possible that they're both great lenses?

Beautiful pictures BTW.

Not sarcastic, just honest. I just am not someone who is great at analyzing the differences in bokeh, particularly in different settings. I am sure I would be satisfied with the Sigma 85mm too -- except for the extra length. I actually prefer 55mm on APS-C.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Not sarcastic, just honest.

This statement sounded very sarcastic to me:

But then again, I'm not a professional, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

If you weren't trying to be sarcastic, then I apologize.

[Rondec]

This statement sounded very sarcastic to me:


If you weren't trying to be sarcastic, then I apologize.

It's OK. I just have a lot of trouble comparing bokeh between completely different lighting situations/backgrounds. My photos really don't prove anything except that the 77 in a couple of situations can be sharp and renders out of focus areas OK. As I said, I would probably be happy with the Sigma 85mm and wouldn't really notice any difference with regard to bokeh. I'm sure I would like it if Pentax ever comes out with a full frame camera, as I really like the 55mm focal length on APS-C.

[Mr Hyde]

Has anyone received a shipping notice on it yet?

I have not. But I did get a "Not in stock" notification from B&H. Of course that could change any day now (hopefully).

[Sorver]

As someone who's been getting more and more into night sky photography, this is fantastic. Awesome news.

I know right exciting stuff more and more lenses with awesome f stops

[m0gwai]

Has anyone received a shipping notice on it yet?

Just received a shipping notice here in Germany. Several online retailers have it in stock now.

[Frater]

Good sign Can't wait to see first Reviews, and for now I anticipate that Sigma Art may well beat Pentax standard zooms (all of them) in terms of
- bokeh,
- color richness,
- contrast, and
- lens flaring?

That's because I have been pointed towards an A/B comparison from the Canon community, which proves that a Sigma Art prime beats even an expensive Canon L counterpart pretty easily, in ALL of the above criteria. See e.g.
Sigma 50 Art Lens Compared With The Canon 50mm F1.2L - DIY Photography

That's an encouraging sign, isn't it? that may silence those Sigma cliches, which stem from Sigma's pre-Art past. Also with regards to coating (for color rendition, contrast, and lens flare robustness).

Weather sealing?
Hmmm. Never worried much in the past to be frank. Every lens I used could stand a good amount of raindrop hits anyway, also those not designated as "water proof" explicitly. None of my lenses ever became foggy inside or anything.

Should a heavy rainstorm (or just heavy rain) kick in, most of us pack up anyway (because most of us just hate working with wet front lens elements) (at least I do). Else I would pack out an umbrella, if I had to shoot under heavy rain. Whatever protects the front glas from becoming wet also protects the lens barrel. Wide angle zooms' lens hoods don't protect well enough, unless you shoot stritcly into the opposite direction to where the wind coming from. And you also better not shoot in cities then, where the shooting angle is often upwards for many buildings or any other motiv which is taller than you. Also, my "rainy" landscape / cityscape photos were dull and gray-ish. And were never really tack sharp, as rain seems to destroy some sharpness, if your motiv is further away.

Probably many share such thoughts, so that Sigma's market researchers found out about that, and consequently waived an explicit (= extra heavy duty) rain&thunderstorm sealing, even in the Art's price category.

'Fine art photography' (or even just ambitious photography) and 'rain' just don't go together really. Under rain, the motiv and picture quality is degraded so much from so many different aspects, that you could get away with your handy 18-55 WR zoom, without loosing out on anything. You even don't need extra bokeh, because the background would be mostly dull and gray anyway, i.e. already non-distracting even without much bokeh

Or just let it be. Go to 500px.com, confirm that the ratio between rainy and non-rainy shots is 1:1000000, draw your conclusion, and adopt this ratio as your personal ratio as well

---

Last edited by Frater; 06-27-2014 at 12:39 PM.

[dadipentak]

Just received a shipping notice

That's encouraging--congrats!

[northcoastgreg]

I get what you're saying, and it's definitely not the perfect lens, but you won't be able to show me another 8mm zoom lens that is better, because there is none.

Which is why I wanted to like the lens. The trouble is, while some photographers fuss about bokeh, I fuss about color rendition. If I'm not getting the colors I want from a lens, it just don't use it, particularly when I have better options at hand. That 8-16 would've been competing with the DA 10-17 and the DA 15, and I doubt the Sigma lens would've seen much use.

It goes wider by a large margin than any other UWA zoom. If other lens makers were able to do a better job with such an extreme specification, then I would expect they would do so.

The DA 10-17 actually goes a bit wider. And the Nikkor 14-24 and Olympus 7-14 are pretty close in terms of width, and are better lenses (particularly the Olympus). Sigma's advantage is that they are the only company that can make an 8-16mm APS-C wide angle zoom lens and sell it for around $700. An Olympus 6-12 made up to the same standards as the Oly SHG 7-14 could easily have cost more than $2,500 (perhaps significantly more).

Have you tried the Sigma 85mm? It's an amazing lens, and I would put it up against any lens from Pentax.

That's a portrait lens, so color rendition is not as important. I still, however, prefer what I've seen from the FA 77.

I've heard some people call the 77mm bokeh more "impressionistic" and they like the harder lines.

That's a fair comment. I don't have a problem with either type of bokeh, but sometimes melting away the background involves using what I find to be an inappropriately narrow DOF. I want more than just the eyes in focus. If the background can't be melted away with narrow DOF; if you need to stop down the lens to get the eyes, nose, and ears in focus -- then a richer, more impressionistic bokeh might constitute a worthwhile trade-off.

[Winder]

That's a fair comment. I don't have a problem with either type of bokeh, but sometimes melting away the background involves using what I find to be an inappropriately narrow DOF. I want more than just the eyes in focus. If the background can't be melted away with narrow DOF; if you need to stop down the lens to get the eyes, nose, and ears in focus -- then a richer, more impressionistic bokeh might constitute a worthwhile trade-off.

The DoF isn't really relevant to the discussion of bokeh between the two lenses. Both lenses can be opened up to the point of only the eyes being in focus and both can be stopped down so that the entire head is in focus.

How can the bokeh of one lens be "richer" than the bokeh of another? Can you define the "richness" of bokeh? I have heard a lot of people describe bokeh as creamy, smooth, busy, harsh, strong...... never richer.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

That's a portrait lens, so color rendition is not as important. I still, however, prefer what I've seen from the FA 77.

In the post I was responding to, you were talking about Sigma lenses in general: "The top Sigma lenses are "spec" lens: superb on optical tests, but hardly superb at anything else"

I just wonder how many "top" Sigma lenses you've actually used recently, since I don't think anybody who has used a lens like the Sigma 85mm would make such a statement. And I haven't used the new 35mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.4 Art lenses, but I hear they are also wonderful.

I posted these pictures in another thread recently, but here they are again. These are all from my Sigma 85mm. If you click on the images, you can see the original full-size version. As I said in the other thread, I've never used another lens that captures the fine detail and texture of skin the way my Sigma does. If you view the full size images, you'll see what I mean.

I'm not a professional, but I've always been very pleased with the colors and the bokeh. The colors are accurate, and the bokeh is lovely. And the AF accuracy is probably the best I've ever experienced. These pictures were all impromptu shots using available lighting with no flash or light modifiers. I have plenty of other similar shots, but I already have these uploaded for posting.

[seventysixersfan]

What is he drinking? Salsa?? Lovely, sharp images, by the way. Glorious bokeh.

[ElJamoquio]

Both lenses can be opened up to the point of only the eyes being in focus

...But only if it's a headshot...

[ChristianRock]

Wonderful pictures from that Sigma. I want one...

[panoguy]

Haven't you folks in the US gotten your Sigma 18-35mm's in PK mount yet?

Up here we had them on Monday!

(NB: I didn't pre-order one, since I have it for Sigma SA already)