[Edgar_in_Indy]

Which one costs three times more than the other one? The gorgeous blonde or the stunning brunette?

You know, you may be right...the analogy may still hold up in some cases.

[NicoleC]

So, back to the 70mm macro. After all this discussion, are we sure it is discontinued? Both the 50mm and 70mm are still available for sale in Pentax mount at B&H. Adorama, on the other hand only has the 50mm in Nikon and the 70mm in Sony and Sigma mount.

My info came from a rep at Sigma. The rep could be wrong or Sigma changed their mind. FWIW, at that time, the web site no longer allowed you to select the 70mm macro for Pentax.


The quote was:

Unfortunately, Sigma no longer makes any 1:1 Macro lens for Pentax mount.

[Nicolas06]

The picture subjects are similar, taken in the same place at the same time of year (within days of each other, from the EXIF),

I looked to the images you mentionned.

For FA31:
Pentax SMC-FA 31mm f/1.8 AL Limited - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict

For Sigma 30:
Sigma AF 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM (Nikon DX) - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict
Sigma AF 30mm f/1.4 EX DC (Pentax K) Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict

Clearly for the FA31 there is no image with a blue sky while for the Sigma 30 it was clearly a sunny day. On the picture of the bike you speak off, the soft shadow for the FA31 just show that at that moment there was maybe some sun, but mostly cloudy still.

Lighting conditions are really different. This will be really to conclude anything from that.

If you are interrested for side by side comparisons, I found:


https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/228193-boke...igma-35-a.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/226388-quic...1-limited.html

[Edgar_in_Indy]

So the Sigma had to deal with harsh, overhead, un-diffused sunlight, and still acquitted itself quite well. And don't forget that the original premise at the heart of the current discussion was that Sigma lenses have a problem with strange color rendition. Even if you ignore the 31mm pictures, the Sigma pictures should speak for themselves.

The pictures in the threads you linked to are kind of crappy and don't do any favors for either lens, to be honest. The pictures from Photozone are much better, and still serve as a useful comparison point. The 31mm simply fails to live up to the hype; that's all. It's a good lens, for sure, but it does not even come close to justifying triple the price of the Sigma, unless having the smallest, coolest-looking lens possible is a major consideration. That's the way I see it, anyway.

---

Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 08-26-2014 at 10:31 AM.

[thibs]

In fact you accuse people here to be Pentax fanboy but how exactly do you differ in your attitude towards Sigma ?

[Edgar_in_Indy]

In fact you accuse people here to be Pentax fanboy but how exactly do you differ in your attitude towards Sigma ?

You do realize that I shoot with a Pentax DSLR, and not a Sigma?

This discussion started because people were making unfounded sweeping claims that Sigma lenses render with a "yellow/green" cast, and that sharpness was practically their only virtue. This is what I've been addressing. Not to belittle Pentax lenses, but to defend Sigma lenses, which I have found to perform very well in my experience.

I simply don't find most of the Pentax lenses to be good value propositions in many cases. But if the 31mm was in the $500 - $600 range, there's a good chance I may never have bought the Sigma 30mm.

I've spent more than $3000 on lenses, but my resources are limited so I'm always looking for the best bang for my buck, and that search has lead me to Sigma in most cases. Every single one of my lens purchases have been painstakingly researched, and all competing lenses have been considered. Unfortunately, Pentax's lens pricing policies have cost them my business. If that makes me a "Sigma fanboy", then so be it.

[Nicolas06]

So the Sigma had to deal with harsh, overhead, un-diffused sunlight, and still acquitted itself quite well. And don't forget that the original premise at the heart of the current discussion was that Sigma lenses have a problem with strange color rendition. Even if you ignore the 31mm pictures, the Sigma pictures should speak for themselves.

The pictures in the threads you linked to are kind of crappy and don't do any favors for either lens, to be honest. The pictures from Photozone are much better, and still serve as a useful comparison point. The 31mm simply fails to live up to the hype; that's all. It's a good lens, for sure, but it does not even come close to justifying triple the price of the Sigma, unless having the smallest, coolest-looking lens possible is a major consideration. That's the way I see it, anyway.

Seriously, you hear yourself?

You said the lighting where the same and was using that as an evidence that the 31 had some difficulties here in term of color tones. You said that the sigma had some clarity the FA was missing and that colors and contrast was the same.

Now that you admit the conditions were quite different, you explain that it just show the sigma lens is far better working on more difficult lighting conditions.

For sure it is very well known that you have less clarity, less contrast and less colors on a sunny day than a cloudy day... Serioulsy...

As for side by side comparison that show some difference between lenses you ignored it as irelevant. At least the subject where the same, the lighting condition the same, and the rendering of the different lenses clearly visible. But apparently, this doesn't count. (I'am not saying here the one that is better, even if I have some throughts but I can clearly see the difference).

There must be some FA31 fanboyism out there, but there must be some denying also.

I agree with you this FA31 is expensive. It is high end lens. Nobody expect Zeiss or Leica to be cheap neither. For sure this imply that much less expensive lense will get almot to theses levels and be far more cheap. I mean the DA35 f/2.4 plastic wonder is already better on borders a f/2.4 than the sigma 30 stopped down to f/8... It is far lighter and smaller. And it also cost 1/3 of the price of the sigma (and 1/9 of the FA ltd).

---------- Post added 08-26-14 at 08:48 PM ----------

You do realize that I shoot with a Pentax DSLR, and not a Sigma?

This discussion started because people were making unfounded sweeping claims that Sigma lenses render with a "yellow/green" cast, and that sharpness was practically their only virtue. This is what I've been addressing. Not to belittle Pentax lenses, but to defend Sigma lenses, which I have found to perform very well in my experience.

I simply don't find most of the Pentax lenses to be good value propositions in many cases. But if the 31mm was in the $500 - $600 range, there's a good chance I may never have bought the Sigma 30mm.

I've spent more than $3000 on lenses, but my resources are limited so I'm always looking for the best bang for my buck, and that search has lead me to Sigma in most cases. Every single one of my lens purchases have been painstakingly researched, and all competing lenses have been considered. Unfortunately, Pentax's lens pricing policies have cost them my business. If that makes me a "Sigma fanboy", then so be it.

Sigma is good value, for sure. As I already said they sell spec sheets and get better price while comparing (in general) sharpness, max apperture and so on. Are they necessarily better? No Depends your needs. If you want something light & small that not the case at all. For ultimate bokeh that not the case neither (you admited yourself this FA had a smoother bokeh).

For me the FA31 was more constrasty, more abble to make the in subject focus pop more, visibly sharper and providing smoother bokeh when doin side by side comparison.

For me it is not even worth buying the sigma 30 instead of keeping the DA35 plastic wonder. I will not get this FA31 for now... But there is no point for me that I deny to myself the sigma 30 has wider apperture avalable or the FA31 has better bokeh, visible sharpness and better ability to make subject pop. That just how it is.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-26-2014 at 11:50 AM.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

And do you hear yourself blaming it all on the lighting? It hasn't been my experience that an overcast day results in warmer colors. As I already pointed out, the 31mm was noticeably warmer than the Sigma 18-35mm when Digitalis posted identical side-by-side pics in another recent thread.

It seems to me that people exaggerate the strengths of the 31mm and other Pentax lenses, and simultaneously strain to find any weakness in 3rd party lenses, while ignoring potential weaknesses of the Pentax lenses.

For example, sharpness is apparently meaningless in Sigma lenses, so it doesn't matter that the 30mm is sharper in the center of the frame. But the edge sharpness of the 31mm is pointed out as a big strength. There's a big double-standard on here, and I'm trying to bring some balance, so that people who don't know better don't end up passing on a good 3rd party lens simply because of group-think.

[JinDesu]

This argument started with people claiming that Sigma lenses are oversized (somewhat true) clinical (perhaps) lenses that do not offer "character". Ed has shown pictures that are quite full of character, and I have found my Sigma lenses to also have "character". I have a FA*24 F2 and a DA*55 F1.4 and my Sigma 50 F1.4 is not a slouch compared to either lens. I personally didn't get a Sigma 30 F1.4 because if I want a 30mm I want a FA31 Ltd, but I'm not going to knock the Sigma 30 F1.4 for being 95% the lens for 33% the price.

The rest of the argument going back and forth is kinda stupid for this thread.

[ak_kiwi]

It seems to me that people exaggerate the strengths of the 31mm and other Pentax lenses, and simultaneously strain to find any weakness in 3rd party lenses, while ignoring potential weaknesses of the Pentax lenses.

Well it is a Pentax forum...
But seriously - the choice of lens is , as many of the previous posters have alluded to, very much down personally preferences and the weight the individual applies to those preferences.

(Std disclosure - I own Tamron, Sigma, Samyang and Pentax lenses and will continue to buy 3rd party lenses if they are still produced for Pentax mount in the future)

[thibs]

Oversized? I dunno if this was said: this is a value judgement (it may have, I didn't check).
Sigma lenses tend (no news here really, nothing new) to be bigger than OEM lenses at a given focal and aperture. We may look at dimensions and weight I believe this is true.
But oversized, this is relative.

But criticism goes both ways and Edgar (sorry, nothing personal, Ed) can't accept criticism towards Sigma lenses. Just as others can't accept when towards Pentax lenses btw.
It's OK, I can agree to disagree with you

But in the end, it's just a matter of taste.

[dadipentak]

Sigma lenses, which I have found to perform very well in my experience.

Mine, too.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

But criticism goes both ways and Edgar (sorry, nothing personal, Ed) can't accept criticism towards Sigma lenses.

If that's your take-away, then either I have not been expressing myself eloquently enough, or you have not actually been reading carefully enough. (Not that I have ever been guilty of speed-reading long forum posts! )

I have no problem accepting valid criticisms of Sigma lenses. I've said before that every lens design is a set of compromises, and each person must choose which comprises they can live with. And I've openly acknowledged weaknesses, such as edge-sharpness in the 30mm.

The thing that I have been responding to is the blanket-claim that Sigma lenses have a problem with colors, and specifically, that they render things in a yellow/green tone. So far, this has still not been substantiated, and to the contrary, it appears to me that the 31mm may have issues with a yellowish tone based on the Photozone pictures and the pictures that Digitalis posted last week.

Some people seem to take the attitude of "good riddance" to reports (or speculation) of Sigma abandoning the K-mount. And this is something that I do strongly disagree with.

[Nicolas06]

This argument started with people claiming that Sigma lenses are oversized (somewhat true) clinical (perhaps) lenses that do not offer "character". Ed has shown pictures that are quite full of character, and I have found my Sigma lenses to also have "character". I have a FA*24 F2 and a DA*55 F1.4 and my Sigma 50 F1.4 is not a slouch compared to either lens. I personally didn't get a Sigma 30 F1.4 because if I want a 30mm I want a FA31 Ltd, but I'm not going to knock the Sigma 30 F1.4 for being 95% the lens for 33% the price.

The rest of the argument going back and forth is kinda stupid for this thread.

Agree and I don't knock them. I said they are good value, they have nice specs and some of them are less expensive. They are also often bigger and some would judge them big and bulcky. Not because of the brand name but because of size and weight.

Bulky = not for me. You have the right to choose what you want. I don't want to have a bulky lens if I can avoid it. I recently brough an FA77 to get right of that huge & heavy 50-135... This is not to buy just after a set of bulky sigmas lenses and negate the gain !

So that always a compromize:
- the sigma lens may get 95% for 1/3 of the price (if you don't like to compare it to FA31, let say to the zeiss lense).
- low end high quality price may get 95% for 1/3 of the sigma lens.
- Sigma/tamron f/2.8 zoom get 95% for 1/3 of the price required for the 3 prime to cover the same range of focal lens.
- The kit lens get may get 90% for 1/6 of the price of the f/2.8 zoom lense.

At the end, the kit lens does 70-80% of what the best stack of prime do, with added flexibility of a zoom and for 1/50 of the price. (The best compromize is arround this kit lens or maybe the f/2.8 zoom.

This doesn't prevent some to buy a sigma 30 or FA31 ! Or even some high end manual lenses.

[mee]

OP: What you really meant to say was ' Sigma Telephoto 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Pentax is doooooOOoooOoomed!!!' right?