Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Let's talk old Sigmas
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Autofocus Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:31 am    Post subject: Let's talk old Sigmas Reply with quote
Hi folks

Now, as you know, the old AF Sigmas don't work on digital EOS bodies, well, wide open they work, but stopped down they give an error.

Hence, they are available very cheaply. I bought the 21-35/3.5-4.5 and am impressed with it, so I got to thinking, what about he others? Are they any good?

Of course, the primes like the 3.5/18 and 2.8/28 will be good, I'll keep my eye out for those, but it's the zooms that are very common and very cheap.

I am finding it very hard to find any reviews or info on these old Sigmas. I always read that the UC series were not very good, so stay away from those. I see the 35-135/3.5-4.5 and 28-70/3.5-4.5 often and wonder how good they are? I read that the APO 75-300 is quite good, better than the 70-300 that replaced it, anyone used one?

I'm interested in using them to shoot mostly BW on my EOS 10QD, so no issues with their compatibility, I'm just wondering what the IQ is like.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've just lent a UC2 70-210 f4/5.6 in EOS fit to a friend, but I haven't heard if it works on his Canon or not, I can't remember which camera he has. I tried it on the film EOS 600 and it seemed to work OK - I didn't have a film in the camera.
If my mate doesn't want it I can get it back, I'll ask him about it.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Uh well the 70-210 is not so easy to get crisp loving results with,
the resolution may be technically better than the images look, but its just not fun
buy for 3 bucks if you have no other tele and are short on cash

One 28-70/3.5-4.5 is said to be "sigma for leica" design
but Sigma lenses are very hard to tell apart - so many models
And whether the same formula, glass and tolerances are in the
Exakta relabels - who knows
I have one and made some nice shots with it, torough testing still awaits

Sigma also made /2.8 zooms but they are pretty rare and expensive (and, for MAF users, often tend not to work on past 1987 bodies since that is when Minolta changed the protocol for the first time, 7000i)

Don't buy 2.8-4, it is said to be soft at 2.8 - so you will shell out more cash for the nice 2.8 engraving.

One interesting lens from sigma that I never could obtain was one of the 70-300 zooms allowing 1:2 macro, by itself! That sounds like a nice walkaround lens, though 70 is a bit long. And of course the 1:2 are at 300mm where these are usually soft.

The 35-135 and 35-70 I could never obtain, for some reason people pay through the nose for them, I hear they are optically surprisingly good (for collectors lenses)


PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the 28mm f/1.8 version. In Minolta AF mount, that is. On crop-sensor Sony A300 it's a great lens, but i really started to like it when i used it on the Minolta 7000AF film body.

I sold the A300, bought a second hand 5D, but i kept the Sigma for my 7000AF! Now you started this topic it's got me thinking if this lens is available in EF mount.... but then again, it might not work indeed....


PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have sigma screw drive AF for nikon, and it works fine with bodies with screw drive af.
As far all older AF with screw drive AF still work fine. Many (if not all) need to fine adjust AF on the bodies they are using.
A bit bump in contrast in post do the trick.

Last edited by hoanpham on Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:22 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the info guys.

The 1.8/28 doesn't work on the digital EOS bodies I read.

The 35-135 seems quite common on ebay UK and not expensive, if it really is good, I'm tempted.

I have my eye on a 3.5-4.5/28-70 if I can get it really cheap.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I found this info about the Sigma 2.8-3.5/75-200. No idea if it's true, but the image samples posted were impressive for a zoom lens.

Quote:
Definately a rare gem and a keeper. There are a few older lenses underated compared to todays lenses. Another great lens if you find one the sigma 75-200 3.8.

Sigma after making the 75-200 2.8/3.5 was commisioned by zeiss/jenna to make them a version. Zeiss sent them glass and thier versions though optically excellent, probably are not any better than sigmas own lens(though they are a little nicer looking.


Sod's law, there are 5 on ebay in the useless Olympus AF fitting and one in the equally useless Yashica AF fitting. Sad


PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I found this info about the Sigma 2.8-3.5/75-200. No idea if it's true, but the image samples posted were impressive for a zoom lens.



I own that lens, it's indeed a very nice (but heavy!) piece of glass and steel. Mine is in Minolta AF mount, i used it on a Sony A300, which i do not have anymore.

Some recent shots:


Lotus 91 by TrueLoveOne, on Flickr


Historic Racing by TrueLoveOne, on Flickr


Alfa Romeo Giulietta Ti by TrueLoveOne, on Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Many thanks for sharing those, it does indeed look like an excellent lens.

Wonderful cars, is that Zaandvoort?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Many thanks for sharing those, it does indeed look like an excellent lens.

Wonderful cars, is that Zaandvoort?


Thanks!

No, that is Spa Francorchamps. I shot those last month during the "Spa Six hours", a 6 hour endurance race for classic cars. There were also classic F1 races and more. There are some more shots in my flickr photostream! Smile


PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
With ref to the Sigma that you don't like i.e. Sigma UC AF 70-210 f4-f5.6 ...well after some test shots, I can't find anything wrong with it so far and it produces good results on film. Well I'm pleased what I bought for £12....Nikon F-401 with this lens and polarizer, red filter and manual.








PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrueLoveOne wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Many thanks for sharing those, it does indeed look like an excellent lens.

Wonderful cars, is that Zaandvoort?


Thanks!

No, that is Spa Francorchamps. I shot those last month during the "Spa Six hours", a 6 hour endurance race for classic cars. There were also classic F1 races and more. There are some more shots in my flickr photostream! Smile


Cool, I'll take a look at those, I love vintage sports cars. I went o Zaandvoort once, main thing I remember is being blasted by sand as it was very windy. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
With ref to the Sigma that you don't like i.e. Sigma UC AF 70-210 f4-f5.6 ...well after some test shots, I can't find anything wrong with it so far and it produces good results on film. Well I'm pleased what I bought for £12....Nikon F-401 with this lens and polarizer, red filter and manual.


I didn't say I didn't like it, I just said I'd read that the UC series were not so good. I had the MF version badged as a Prakticar, I forget exactly what it was like now, I might still have it, I do still have the 35-70 Prakticar Sigma.

I've just bought a 35-135 for EOS cheap, it will complement my 21-35 well. Now I just need to pick up a 75-300 cheap.

I'm still going to keep an eye out for that 3.8/75-200 as it looks great.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
With ref to the Sigma that you don't like i.e. Sigma UC AF 70-210 f4-f5.6 ...well after some test shots, I can't find anything wrong with it so far and it produces good results on film. Well I'm pleased what I bought for £12....Nikon F-401 with this lens and polarizer, red filter and manual.


I didn't say I didn't like it, I just said I'd read that the UC series were not so good. I had the MF version badged as a Prakticar, I forget exactly what it was like now, I might still have it, I do still have the 35-70 Prakticar Sigma.

I've just bought a 35-135 for EOS cheap, it will complement my 21-35 well. Now I just need to pick up a 75-300 cheap.

I'm still going to keep an eye out for that 3.8/75-200 as it looks great.


Interesting to know what you think, as I have my eye on some AF Nikkor zooms below 80mm but so far I've being outbid.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian probably a bit too expensive, but here in Slovenia i often see a 28-70/2.8 for 180,00 eur:

http://www.bolha.com/fotografija-in-optika/fotografska-oprema/fotografski-objektivi/za-canon/objektiv-sigma-28-70-2-8-ex-asp-za-canon-1288664618.html?aclct=1381087951

I have the 24-60/2.8, my long companion, i really like it a lot.

Tomas


PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Interesting to know what you think, as I have my eye on some AF Nikkor zooms below 80mm but so far I've being outbid.


28-80, the cheap looking plastic kit lens, two versions, D and G, only difference is D has an aperture ring, G doesn't. It's an excellent lens, outperforms many more expensive Nikkors. Often found with old Nikon 35mm AF bodies.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tomasg wrote:
Ian probably a bit too expensive, but here in Slovenia i often see a 28-70/2.8 for 180,00 eur:

http://www.bolha.com/fotografija-in-optika/fotografska-oprema/fotografski-objektivi/za-canon/objektiv-sigma-28-70-2-8-ex-asp-za-canon-1288664618.html?aclct=1381087951

I have the 24-60/2.8, my long companion, i really like it a lot.

Tomas


Sadly out of my price range, but I would like one, cheers.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
Interesting to know what you think, as I have my eye on some AF Nikkor zooms below 80mm but so far I've being outbid.


28-80, the cheap looking plastic kit lens, two versions, D and G, only difference is D has an aperture ring, G doesn't. It's an excellent lens, outperforms many more expensive Nikkors. Often found with old Nikon 35mm AF bodies.


Thanks but I've tracked down two good Nikon zooms, but was interested in what you have found out\tested for other makes of zooms that would also have a Nikon mount..... yanno the unpopular ones going cheap, but are hidden gems. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't see the point in wasting time and money looking for hidden gems, just buy a known good lens, there are so many it's not hard to find them. Out of all the third-party old lenses I've owned, how many were worth using? Hmm, I can only think of one. If you do find a hidden gem, it will still not be anything special, all it means is you fund one that performs as well as a lens from the major makers. It would be so much simpler to just buy a lens from the major makers in the first place.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
28-80, the cheap looking plastic kit lens, two versions, D and G, only difference is D has an aperture ring, G doesn't.


There are three 28-80 mm Nikkor zooms (2 Ds and a G) with different optical formulae. See : http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#28-xx .


PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
28-80, the cheap looking plastic kit lens, two versions, D and G, only difference is D has an aperture ring, G doesn't.


There are three 28-80 mm Nikkor zooms (2 Ds and a G) with different optical formulae. See : http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#28-xx .


H'mm I suppose the D 28-80mm "new" is better than its predecessor Question


PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
sichko wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
28-80, the cheap looking plastic kit lens, two versions, D and G, only difference is D has an aperture ring, G doesn't.


There are three 28-80 mm Nikkor zooms (2 Ds and a G) with different optical formulae. See : http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#28-xx .


H'mm I suppose the D 28-80mm "new" is better than its predecessor Question


Not necessarily, Nikon, like the other makers, changed things to make them cheaper, not necessarily better.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
sichko wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
28-80, the cheap looking plastic kit lens, two versions, D and G, only difference is D has an aperture ring, G doesn't.


There are three 28-80 mm Nikkor zooms (2 Ds and a G) with different optical formulae. See : http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#28-xx .


H'mm I suppose the D 28-80mm "new" is better than its predecessor Question


Not necessarily, Nikon, like the other makers, changed things to make them cheaper, not necessarily better.


Just going by elements and groups as the old has 7/7 and the new 8/8...so there must be a reason why they changed the lens design and made the lens longer and heavier.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
sichko wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
28-80, the cheap looking plastic kit lens, two versions, D and G, only difference is D has an aperture ring, G doesn't.


There are three 28-80 mm Nikkor zooms (2 Ds and a G) with different optical formulae. See : http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#28-xx .


H'mm I suppose the D 28-80mm "new" is better than its predecessor Question


Well it's got 8 bits of glass rather than 7, wider MF ring, although still not very wide, and a closer "close focus" distance with a better "macro" reproduction ratio. And Ken Rockwell prefers it.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Okay, can we get back on topic now please, if you want to discuss the minutiae of older Nikkors, please start your own thread.

I've just bought a Sigma 3.5-4.5/35-135 for my 35mm EOS:






It's very hard to find any info about this old lens, anyone know anything about it?

So far, all I've found out is that it was introduced in 1986 and was one of the first Sigma AF lenses. It's heavy and very robustly built, in total contrast to modern Sigmas.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Autofocus Corner
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2