Re: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II
- Original Message - From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:07 AM Subject: RE: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II I would second this. I researched this lens because I was seriously considering it second hand. The build of these lenses is 'precarious' shall we say, and I would not be keen to buy one which has been dropped - certainly not if it has been self-fixed, who knows what gremlins may be lurking. It is however a fine lens optically. The only problem is flare as Alan says. You need to consider its use. For me landscapes just needed the extra flare control that SMC gives and I went for the FA*24, which is financially a whole different ballgame. Rob, You chose well. The Sigma might be sharp, but it has *extreme* barrel distortion which is obvious in many types of shot, not just architectural. Regards, John
Re: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II
Hi! I think you've convinced me. I am passing this one on. Unless of course just a few shots I've made with it come out astoundingly good. Then I will have to reconsider. But being able to see the distortion in the viewfinder of my ME Super makes me think that above possibility is rather remote. Thanks a lot all those who responded to me. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57
Re: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II
For some reason, I was thinking of the f1.8. I concur, $100 is way too much for the 2.8. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:07 AM Subject: RE: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II > I would second this. I researched this lens because I was seriously > considering it second hand. The build of these lenses is 'precarious' > shall we say, and I would not be keen to buy one which has been dropped > - certainly not if it has been self-fixed, who knows what gremlins may > be lurking. It is however a fine lens optically. The only problem is > flare as Alan says. You need to consider its use. For me landscapes > just needed the extra flare control that SMC gives and I went for the > FA*24, which is financially a whole different ballgame. > > I also agree with Alan on price. These go for £40-60 from a dealer with > warranty in the UK, and there are plenty of samples. $100 seems way > over the top, all considered. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 28 May 2003 07:36 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II > > > > > > I had the manual focus version and imho, it was fine > > optically. Colour & > > contrast were good. Flare control & built quality were > > lacking. The hood did > > nothing to the flare problem. Regular polarizer worked fine without > > vignetting. However, US$100 is expensive for what it is imho, > > especially it > > was dropped before. I certainly would not recommend any > > camera or lens which > > has been dropped before, except for parts. Fixed or not > > really doesn't > > matter. This lens is not a rare enough for the risk. > > > > regards, > > Alan Chan > > > > >I am given the opportunity to buy this lens for about $100 (in local > > >currency ). > > > > > >It goes as follows: > > >1. I'd get circular polarizer and UV filter and also a hood for this > > >lens. 2. The lens is K-mount with AF that works very find with MZ-5n > > >that I could handle yesterday. > > > > > >Unfortunately the previous owner (my co-worker, what a > > strange notion > > >just before very recently ) admits that the lens once fell on the > > >ground and had to be fixed. The damage was to the focusing > > ring so that > > >the lens couldn't focus because the ring was somewhat > > flabby. The owner > > >fixed that (I suppose himself) and by now it works good. The only > > >effect, according to him, of this event is the paint rubbed off some > > >inch or so off the focusing ring. You know, like a big scratch. > > > > > >It also can go as short as 18 cm from the object giving > > 'macro' up to > > >1:4 factor. So Sigma designates it as macro lens. It is also multi > > >coated. > > > > > >I took few shots and of course I intend to take this lens > > for the ride. > > > > > >Is it a worthy lens for this kind of money? I realize proper Pentax > > >optics would cost few times as much. And I really liked the angle. > > > > > >Please advise. I would especially appreciate comments from owners of > > >this very lens. > > > > > >Thanks in advance. > > > > _ > > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > > > > >
Re: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II
Shoot a slide of a brick wall with it. If it is equaly sharp in all four corners, buy it. If not pass on it. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 1:02 AM Subject: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II > Hi! > > I am given the opportunity to buy this lens for about $100 (in local > currency ). > > It goes as follows: > 1. I'd get circular polarizer and UV filter and also a hood for this > lens. > 2. The lens is K-mount with AF that works very find with MZ-5n that I > could handle yesterday. > > Unfortunately the previous owner (my co-worker, what a strange notion > just before very recently ) admits that the lens once fell on the > ground and had to be fixed. The damage was to the focusing ring so > that the lens couldn't focus because the ring was somewhat flabby. The > owner fixed that (I suppose himself) and by now it works good. The > only effect, according to him, of this event is the paint rubbed off > some inch or so off the focusing ring. You know, like a big scratch. > > It also can go as short as 18 cm from the object giving 'macro' up to > 1:4 factor. So Sigma designates it as macro lens. It is also multi > coated. > > I took few shots and of course I intend to take this lens for the > ride. > > Is it a worthy lens for this kind of money? I realize proper Pentax > optics would cost few times as much. And I really liked the angle. > > Please advise. I would especially appreciate comments from owners of > this very lens. > > Thanks in advance. > > --- > Boris Liberman > www.geocities.com/dunno57 >
Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II
Hi! I am given the opportunity to buy this lens for about $100 (in local currency ). It goes as follows: 1. I'd get circular polarizer and UV filter and also a hood for this lens. 2. The lens is K-mount with AF that works very find with MZ-5n that I could handle yesterday. Unfortunately the previous owner (my co-worker, what a strange notion just before very recently ) admits that the lens once fell on the ground and had to be fixed. The damage was to the focusing ring so that the lens couldn't focus because the ring was somewhat flabby. The owner fixed that (I suppose himself) and by now it works good. The only effect, according to him, of this event is the paint rubbed off some inch or so off the focusing ring. You know, like a big scratch. It also can go as short as 18 cm from the object giving 'macro' up to 1:4 factor. So Sigma designates it as macro lens. It is also multi coated. I took few shots and of course I intend to take this lens for the ride. Is it a worthy lens for this kind of money? I realize proper Pentax optics would cost few times as much. And I really liked the angle. Please advise. I would especially appreciate comments from owners of this very lens. Thanks in advance. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57
Re: Sigma 24/2.8 Super Wide II
Hi, I recieved my Sigma EX 24mm/1.8 just today. I can't comment on the optical quality yet (other than no distortion visible), but the mechanical side could be better. Focusing from 18cm to infinity in a quarter of a twist takes getting used to since I use only manual focusing gear. The focus is dampened pretty well but there is some play with it and it has a whirring noise to it. Well I guess most AF lenses do this when focusing in MF. But still: yuck. I´ve read good things about the quality of these 20,24 and 28mm EXDGASPMACRO :) Sigmas. Only thing concerning me is flare, but I´m sure this lens doesn´t flare nearly as much as my Tamron 24mm/2.5 did. If I only had a FA* 24mm/2 to test the Sigma with... Guess I´ll upload some sample pics in the coming weeks. -mte
Re: Sigma 24/2.8 Super Wide II
Alan Chan wrote: > > I had these Sigma 24mm and 28mm few years back, both manual focus. > Optically, both are great imho. However, both suffers from flare problem and > substandard mechanical design, particularly the aperture ring assembly. The > 24mm even had worse rubber, aperture ring material and electrical contacts > (all 3 wore noticably faster than the even older 28/2.8). The satin finish > was a joke and the 10 years old shiny surface is better. Both hoods were > useless to guard again flare, although they were well made. Hi Alan, I would agree with all of the above, but should add that the later 24mm Sigma has severe barrel distortion and a yellow colour cast that sets it apart from the neutral rendition of Pentax optics. The earlier Sigma lenses were indeed better made. John
Re: Sigma 24/2.8 Super Wide II
Thanks Alan, I guess I'll strick to Pentax, then. Regards, Łukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii - Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 7:06 AM Subject: Re: Sigma 24/2.8 Super Wide II > >Anybody has this lens? How good/bad is it? I'm tempted by the 24 mm, but > >I'm not sure about the quality. How is the manual focus? I'm thinking > >about buying either this Sigma or a FA 28/2.8 AL. Is the Pentax lens > >significantly better? > > I had these Sigma 24mm and 28mm few years back, both manual focus. > Optically, both are great imho. However, both suffers from flare problem and > substandard mechanical design, particularly the aperture ring assembly. The > 24mm even had worse rubber, aperture ring material and electrical contacts > (all 3 wore noticably faster than the even older 28/2.8). The satin finish > was a joke and the 10 years old shiny surface is better. Both hoods were > useless to guard again flare, although they were well made. I don't know > much about the FA28/2.8AL. But if you can afford the extra, either go for > the FA*24/2 (which I am very happy with) or A24/2.8. > > regards, > Alan Chan > > _ > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- OnetPoczta: duża, szybka, bezpieczna! http://poczta.onet.pl/oferta/
Re: Sigma 24/2.8 Super Wide II
Anybody has this lens? How good/bad is it? I'm tempted by the 24 mm, but I'm not sure about the quality. How is the manual focus? I'm thinking about buying either this Sigma or a FA 28/2.8 AL. Is the Pentax lens significantly better? I had these Sigma 24mm and 28mm few years back, both manual focus. Optically, both are great imho. However, both suffers from flare problem and substandard mechanical design, particularly the aperture ring assembly. The 24mm even had worse rubber, aperture ring material and electrical contacts (all 3 wore noticably faster than the even older 28/2.8). The satin finish was a joke and the 10 years old shiny surface is better. Both hoods were useless to guard again flare, although they were well made. I don't know much about the FA28/2.8AL. But if you can afford the extra, either go for the FA*24/2 (which I am very happy with) or A24/2.8. regards, Alan Chan _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Sigma 24/2.8 Super Wide II
Hi there, Anybody has this lens? How good/bad is it? I'm tempted by the 24 mm, but I'm not sure about the quality. How is the manual focus? I'm thinking about buying either this Sigma or a FA 28/2.8 AL. Is the Pentax lens significantly better? Thanks in advance. Regards, Łukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- OnetPoczta: duża, szybka, bezpieczna! http://poczta.onet.pl/oferta/
