[ElJamoquio]

I'm not that great at PP. I get a little better every year but it's not my thing.

I agree with your critique, but I still think an OOC lens with the 'look' I want is quite valuable.

[Nicolas06]

I would too. I think the lesson to be drawn from recent discontinuing of Sigma glass is that, even when Sigma decides to release a K-mount version of one of their lenses (and they'll be very selective in what the choose), there's no guarantee that they'll keep producing that specific K-mount version. If it doesn't sell enough for their liking, they'll discontinue it in a heartbeat. So if a lens like the 18-35 f1.8 fits your shooting style, get it while it's still around. Three, four years down the road, that lens may be hard to get ahold of.

Sigma lenses are update often... I would not be suprised sigma stop the 18-35 for all mount if it doesn't sell enough or go with an updated version in a few years.

As for Pentax, from what I have seen the Sigma 35 Art, Sigma 30 Art and Sigma 18-35 are all in K-mount. That's not bad, None of them are cheap or small (let say sigma 30 not too big). But there is no Pentax competition (or from any other lens maker in fact, at least with AF).

[ElJamoquio]

Are we calling Tamron's offerings 'legacy' now?

[Nicolas06]

Don't worry, if you spend 5 minutes around here, you'll find plenty of people hating on Sigma.

Personally, I don't know what you're talking about the color cast. I never see it mentioned on professional review sites that review all brands of lenses. So Pentax lenses all have the same exact perfect color cast, even though they are designed variously by Pentax, Tokina and Tamron?

And even if it were true that Sigma lenses all somehow manage to have some kind of unusual color cast, is that even an issue if you shoot RAW? But again, I'm not necessarily buying it.

I think there's a lot of people who reflexively don't want to give too much credit to a non-Pentax lens, and to sometimes attribute undue virtue to anything with "Pentax" on it. Somewhat conveniently, Pentax seems to excel at everything that can't be measured.

And if a particular Pentax lens is sharp, the sharpness is mentioned and praised on here endlessly. But when Sigma lenses are sharp, it's because they're one-dimensional spec-whores.

Pentax excel at small and lightweight lenses. This is very easy to mesure and they are quite good at it.

Ask for sharpness ? That's good, I love it in a sense. This allow to shoot my DA50-135, crop and get a good 300mm shoot out of it. This make lot of sense as this is my longest focal lens and the DA55-300 would not do better better at 300mm than the 50-135 cropped to 300mm. But other than that, I mean MTF50? If the lens score 1000 it is more than enough for a standard screen, and 2000 would get you satified for the biggest print. This is really if you crop or do lot of pixel peeping that you'll need it. More, I have seen more difference in pure sharpness from going from K5 to K3, than between going from low end to high end glass...

Sharpness is interresting but not essential as long it is good enough, especially if we don't speak of long focal where the subject is always too small.

So what to ask more when it is sharp enough than being lightweight and small? This is perfectly and objectif to mesure and Pentax fare well on this. To keep good contrast and control well flare? This is mesurable too and from the review most pentax primes fare quite well due to good coating and design with few lenses elements. (You typically need more elements for more sharpness & wider appertures).

There can be the max apperture for more dof control and more low light capabilities. That's really true. And there the sharpness argument wide open. That's the sigma niche for high end lenses. Ultimate sharpness and ultimate apperture.

There also the overall rendering, quality of bokeh... Quality of colors. Lenses like FA31 & FA77 are legendary for their bokeh... Far more recognised than the sigma...

So for sure sigma lenses are nice, but they fit a niche. If you look for that, you find them fantastic. Otherwise they look so-so.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-22-2014 at 03:06 PM.

[cali92rs]

Don't worry, if you spend 5 minutes around here, you'll find plenty of people hating on Sigma.

Personally, I don't know what you're talking about the color cast. I never see it mentioned on professional review sites that review all brands of lenses. So Pentax lenses all have the same exact perfect color cast, even though they are designed variously by Pentax, Tokina and Tamron?

And even if it were true that Sigma lenses all somehow manage to have some kind of unusual color cast, is that even an issue if you shoot RAW? But again, I'm not necessarily buying it.

I think there's a lot of people who reflexively don't want to give too much credit to a non-Pentax lens, and to sometimes attribute undue virtue to anything with "Pentax" on it. Somewhat conveniently, Pentax seems to excel at everything that can't be measured.

And if a particular Pentax lens is sharp, the sharpness is mentioned and praised on here endlessly. But when Sigma lenses are sharp, it's because they're one-dimensional spec-whores.

The placebo effect is strong...

[thibs]

So what, people find cons to Sigma (whic h is their right isn't it) means they hate Sigma ?
Shiny white or dark black? If you don't praise them you hate them ?
Geez is this kindergarten or what ?

[Edgar_in_Indy]

So what, people find cons to Sigma (whic h is their right isn't it) means they hate Sigma ?
Shiny white or dark black? If you don't praise them you hate them ?
Geez is this kindergarten or what ?

Why are you misrepresenting the situation? The two posters I were responding to said that Sigma lenses are like a "bulky, heavy spec sheet", and the other one agreed and said they have a greenish/yellowish cast. So it was not a case of people simply not praising them.

As the poster above you said, I think there is a strong placebo effect, and I do find it annoying sometimes. I've been delighted with my Sigma lenses, and I like to share my positive experience with others. So when I see somebody besmirching the lenses that I use and like, I feel compelled to provide a counter-opinion. Is that not also my right?

---

Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 08-23-2014 at 05:48 AM.

[Nicolas06]

"bulky, heavy spec sheet"

Objectively, many sigma lenses are exactly that, bulky, heavy to have an impressive spec sheet in term of chart tests and wide appertures.

That is what many of theses lenses are. So if you want to play with wide apperture and like lot of sharpness they are for you.

If you prefer something small and don't care of ultimate apperture, they are not for you.

Subaru will ofter more horsepower for the price... They are know for that. But that not a reason for thinking that everybody should buy subaru or even like their cars. Or that nobody should ever buy subary neither.

Choose the right too for the job

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Again, you're ignoring the full context of the posts I was responding to. I'll help you out with a quote since you guys seem to have forgotten: "I don't want to buy a bulky, heavy spec sheet. I want a lens that help me to take great photos."

Of course some of the apertures Sigmas are large and heavy. I have no problem acknowledging that.

[JinDesu]

I'd like to throw in that Sigma lenses have been great for me. I have a 50 1.4 (not art) and a 17-70 (also not art), but also a 105 macro, used to have a 10-20 F4-5.6, and I am borrowing my friend's 70-200 II. Despite the 50 1.4 being larger than my DA*55, it's performed as well and is faster at focusing. The 17-70 has not been a disappointment to me as a kit lens replacement, and I don't think it's larger than the DA 17-70 by much. The 105 macro performs as well as any other macro lens (having used a DFA 100 macro and a Tamron 90mm). The 10-20 F4-5.6 was never lacking in sharpness, it just wasn't my type of lens. And the 70-200 II that I'm testing for my friend is performing admirably, and I don't doubt it'll compare well to my Tamron 70-200 (which is a great performer). In fact, it looks like it's a bit shorter than the Tamron, which is surprising.

So to label Sigma as a simple label of "bulky heavy spec sheet" type lens is pointless. They may be larger than the Pentax offerings, but they aren't larger than the CaNikon offerings (who they are more targeted at anyways).

[Nicolas06]

Again, you're ignoring the full context of the posts I was responding to. I'll help you out with a quote since you guys seem to have forgotten: "I don't want to buy a bulky, heavy spec sheet. I want a lens that help me to take great photos."

Of course some of the apertures Sigmas are large and heavy. I have no problem acknowledging that.

Thart still true... We have the right to not have the same view on what sigma offer, isn't it? Beside, it was me that written the post you refer too, so I'am well aware thank.

I just brought a FA77 while I could have brought a Sigma 85mm f/1.4. In some ways, the sigma 85 has a better spec sheet, f/1.4 instead of f/1.8 and it sure impressive.

It is more than 3 time the volume and a little less than 3 time the weight through... Price is arround the same.

And we didn't speak of any rendering of whatever. But just from that I know I prefer the FA.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Thart still true... We have the right to not have the same view on what sigma offer, isn't it? Beside, it was me that written the post you refer too, so I'am well aware thank.

Of course I respect your right to have a different opinion. But this is a place for sharing differing opinions, and that's exactly what we've been doing.

My opinion is that both Pentax and Sigma make some very good lenses, and some not-so-good lenses. And I think that generally speaking, Sigma lenses present a better value proposition for photographers, assuming the size/weight of the Sigma is not a problem. And I think that any good lens is capable of capturing great photos, assuming all the other necessary conditions are met. And I think that sometimes the lens gets too much credit, or takes too much blame, in the outcome of the photos.

For example, the following two photos were both captured with my Sigma 85mm on my Pentax K-30 at home within the last week, both using available lighting. But while one is very pleasing to me and has lots of "pop", the other is dull, flat, and boring. You can click on either picture to view the full-size, uncropped image:

[stevebrot]

Huh? I own two Sigma lenses. My 50/2.8 EX DG Macro is proportioned similarly to and weighs two ounces more than the DFA 50/2.8 Macro. Both have an aperture ring and cover the full 35mm frame. The Sigma is made of metal and the Pentax is made of plastic. The other Sigma is the 17-70/2.8-4 (Contemporary). It is also proportioned similarly to the DA 17-70/4 (slightly smaller) and weighs just a smidgeon less despite being a full stop faster at the wide end.

Specs? Yes, both lenses definitely spec well. Build? Yes, both are very nicely built. Performance? The Sigma macro performs on a par with the DFA 50/2.8 and the Sigma 17-70 is better, much better than the comparable Pentax offering.

So...in what regard are either of these lenses bulky, heavy, and over-spec'ed merely to look good in the press? Or do I own the only two lenses in the Sigma line-up that are exceptions?


Steve

BTW...the 50/2.8 Macro does have a warm color cast, though I would hesitate to label it as yellow or greenish.

[dadipentak]

why can't somebody anybody release a 28-105ish for K mount that matches the L Glass? Please?????

An AF version of the A 35-105/3.5 would be awesome!

[Nicolas06]

Huh? I own two Sigma lenses. My 50/2.8 EX DG Macro is proportioned similarly to and weighs two ounces more than the DFA 50/2.8 Macro. Both have an aperture ring and cover the full 35mm frame. The Sigma is made of metal and the Pentax is made of plastic. The other Sigma is the 17-70/2.8-4 (Contemporary). It is also proportioned similarly to the DA 17-70/4 (slightly smaller) and weighs just a smidgeon less despite being a full stop faster at the wide end.

Specs? Yes, both lenses definitely spec well. Build? Yes, both are very nicely built. Performance? The Sigma macro performs on a par with the DFA 50/2.8 and the Sigma 17-70 is better, much better than the comparable Pentax offering.

So...in what regard are either of these lenses bulky, heavy, and over-spec'ed merely to look good in the press? Or do I own the only two lenses in the Sigma line-up that are exceptions?


Steve

BTW...the 50/2.8 Macro does have a warm color cast, though I would hesitate to label it as yellow or greenish.

Well it depend... Pentax has some lenses that are let say standard lenses and sigma too. That's zooms like 17-70 and things like that. The contemporary line is ok.

You speak of sigma 50mm lenses, let's see the tendancy...

Pentax
FA43 f/1.9 : 2,7cm x 6.3cm, 168g
FA50 f/1.4 : 3.7cm x 6.5cm, 220g
DA50 f/1.8 : 3.8cm x 6.3cm, 122g
DFA50 macro f/2.8 : 7cm x 6.7cm, 265g
DA*55 : 7cm x 6.6cm, 375g

Sigma
50mm f/2.8 macro : 7.1cm x 6.4cm, 315g.
50mm EX f/1.4 : 8.4cm x 6.8cm, 505g
50mm Art f/1.4 : 9.9cm x 8.5cm, 815g

I don't say this is not justified for maximum quality at f/1.4 but this sure doesn't come for free in term of weight & size.

You could repeat that for the 35mm primes or 85mm primes.

On wide angle, pentax offer very small prime lenses (DA15, DA21), while sigma has a big primes at 10, 15, 20, 24mm...

Sigma recently developped a 18-35 f/1.8... Pentax recently developped a 20-40 f/2.8-4. Their size and weight isn't exactly on par.

The 50-135 is lighter too than latest sigma 50-150...

Not to say that sigma is wrong in the absolute, but if one want to argue that sigma have small lenses like pentax this is plain wrong. Sigma has some standard sized lenses as Pentax do... And has huge bulky lenses as opposite of very small & lightweight Pentax lenses.

Choose your preference. It doesn't matter for some standard sized lenses, but it does for others.