Sigma SQ 300mm f/4 (M42)

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

I helped Calvin win an auction for this lens from eBay because the US seller didn't want to ship out of the country. Calvin has encouraged me to try it out before I send it on to him and even to post my results and opinions, so that's what this thread is about.

Okay, I'm guessing that the Sigma SQ 300mm f/4 was built sometime during the late 1970s. It is very robust in its construction -- all metal with a rubberized focusing collar. The front filter diameter is 77mm. It came with a metal front lens cap, but did not come with a hood. The lens uses a YS-PM M42 mount. It has no tripod collar, but sure would benefit from one.

Unique to this lens as far as I've ever seen is a second focusing collar that is used for close focusing (see photos below for more on this).

#1 Sigma 300mm f/4. Those strange reflections in the front element are branches and leaves from one of our oak trees.

#2 The Sigma 300mm has something called "Scalematic" with its own focusing scale. As near as I've been able to determine, the dimensions shown on the scale are the actual dimensions of the image at a given focal setting -- in feet and inches only, though. Both horizontal and vertical dimensions are listed. Kinda handy when you think about it.

#3 This is the section of the lens that extends using the second focusing helical. When used, it uncovers three close focusing ratios: 1/8, 1/5, and 1/4. The second focusing helical can be operated fully only when the lens is at its closest focus setting.

#4 The entire lens with the second focusing helical fully extended.

Next up are some images which will give you an idea of the lens's performance.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

The camera I used for these tests is my Canon XS (1000D). I also used a sturdy tripod. The Canon was set to ISO 100. I used Live View and a 10-second self timer for focusing accuracy and to minimize camera-induced shake.

I was curious about the camera's close focusing capabilities using its 2nd focusing helical, so I decided to start there. Just looking through the viewfinder with the lens set to f/4 though, I could see quite a bit of flare/ghosting.

For this first test, I tried getting the helical set as close to 1/4 as I could.

#1 Yep, lots of flare/ghosting at f/4.

#2 Quite a bit better at f/8, though.

#3 And even better at f/16. I found that this lens exhibits essentially no diffraction-induced softness at f/16. I didn't test it at f/22.

All that foggy softness gave me an idea. I got to thinking that it just might be interesting using this lens for portraits because often this sort of effect can be interesting when taking portrait shots. But I was wondering if I'd be able to get far enough away from the subject and still have the ghosting. I decided to enlist the help of my daughter, Alex, to find out. She's a good sport, so she went for it.

The results were about what I was expecting. The most hazy shots were really too close up to be called portraits. Even so, I think I was able to get a few photos that were at least mildly interesting.

The unprocessed images:

#4 Closest focus.

#5 With the helical retracted a bit further

#6 And a bit further still

So, I decided to play around with the photos I took using a bit of curves adjustment with my image processing software. Just curves, no saturation, sharpening, or anything else.

#7

#8 This is real close to what I was picturing in my mind

#9 Same with this one, but #5's I like a bit better.

A couple more I took from just a bit further away, to which I also applied a curves pp adjustment.

#10

#11

Next up I'll show the results I was getting at mid-range distances. For this next series of tests, I also pulled out a few other lenses I have with 300mm focal lengths.

WolverineX · Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:13 pm Post subject:

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

My 100mm Sigma lens in macro mode produce same unusable soft , foggy images , lens is in mint condition. In normal mode , nice portrait lens.

WolverineX · Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:44 pm Post subject:

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

This dove was probably about 20 feet away. I didn't record the aperture, but I'm guessing it was probably around f/8. Sharpness and contrast are respectable, I think. I was hand-holding the lens and shooting with a shutter speed of around 1/200, so I just felt fortunate that I got a few shots that were as sharp as these. Both images are crops from larger ones, but they aren't 100% crops. A fair amount of chromatic aberration can be seen at this enlargement setting.

#1

#2

Next, I took aim at an old tree stump. The camera/lens combo was mounted on a tripod, and Live View with a self-timer was used.

#3 A photo of the old tree stump:

I have three zooms with 300mm at the long end of their focal range: a Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4, a Tokina 100-300mm f/4 SD, and a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6. I decided to see how the Sigma stacked up against them. I've combined images from the four lenses, all at 100%, into three composite images:

#4 All three lenses wide open. At f/4, the Sigma is showing rather strong ghosting compared to the threee zooms. The Tokina is the clear winner.

#5 By f/8, the Sigma has improved, but it is still exhibiting a noticeable amount of ghosting.

#6 By f/16, however, its sharpness and clarity is on par with the Tokina and Tamron. The Canon EF 75-300 is either having focusing difficulties (I was using AF) or is a woefully poor performer at f/16.

All of the above comparison images are showing some pixelation. I blame my POS entry-level Canon XS for this. When I zoom an image out past 80% this typically happens. The solution, is, of course, to turn the camera's sharpness way down and then not to boost sharpness when converting from RAW. But if I don't boost it somewhat, I'm stuck with images that are rather soft overall. So I just live with it, and look forward to the day I can replace this camera with a 5D II or equivalent.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Laurentiu Cristofor · Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA

This lens doesn't seem to have a builtin hood - have you used a hood with it? That 77mm front element is probably very vulnerable to stray light.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Finally I compared the Sigma against the zooms at a distant setting -- close enough to infinity such that it makes no difference. I focused on a tree top over 100 meters distant from the camera. Once again, the camera and lens were mounted on a sturdy tripod, Live View was used, as was the self-timer.

Here is the entire scene:

#1

And the 100% composite comparisons:

#3

#4

#5

The Sigma showed steady improvement as smaller apertures were used. I was a bit surprised by the Tamron's performance. Usually it does very well, but not in this test. This could be due to changing light and wind conditions. The sun was moving in and out of the clouds for the entire time I was taking photos, which really affected shutter speeds, and the winds would gust, which caused motion-induced blur with quite a number of photos.

My conclusion: To me the Sigma is an interesting lens as a collectible because of its scalematic focusing range and its second focusing helical, and just because of its solid build quality. As a lens one would want to use for photography, I believe it can be a good performer as long as one is aware of its limitations.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Himself · Expire: 2013-05-30

That Tokina zoom seems to be real good compared with the other ones.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Yep. I haven't had it for very long, and the more I use it, the more I like it.

BRunner · Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic

I tried three Sigma System focus lenses. 4/200, 2.8/135 and Macro 2.8/100. All had the same crappy rendering as the 4/300 shown here. Low contrast, dull colors and so on. I made about 5 test shots with every and sold them. Maybe the 200 and 135 version stopped down to f4 or f5.6 was usable.
Sadly, the build quality of these lenses is much better than it's optical performance.

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

Interesting results! The two copies of the Tamron SP 60-300 I had were both very sharp indeed from f8, but that Tokina looks fantastic.

As for the Sigma, I'm sorry to say that it fits in the same camp as most other Sigmas from that era...pretty awful! In fact, I'd say performance is completetly unacceptable.

Spotmatic · Joined: 18 Aug 2008 Posts: 4045 Location: Netherlands

I'm sorry too, but the Sigma is not suitable for normal photography. I cannot even remember when I had to resort to f/16 to get "acceptable" pictures. If it's about the soft focus effect then a heavily scratched filter in front of good glass would also work Smile

Note to self: never buy pre-2000's Sigma lenses. Smile

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Well, the reason why I said the Sigma could be a good performer as long as one is aware of its limitations is simply because I was able to get some decent photos with it after I'd learned of its limitations. Which, sadly, are many. And I think I was able to use the softness to good effect with the portraits.

As for not buying any pre-2000 Sigma lenses, well I dunno. I haven't used that many Sigmas over the years, except for one -- the 600mm f/8 mirror. And that lens was actually very good. Its continued high prices on eBay suggest that other photographers realize its quality too. Sigma also produced some MF APO lenses during the late 1980s. I've never used one, but at the time as I recall they had a pretty decent reputation.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Typical Sigma , some of them stunning like what you said this mirror lens, many of them a piece of junk like this lens.

I am very satisfied with 400mm f5.6 APO lens , I had previous version labeled to MC it was really , really crap.

wupdigoj · Joined: 18 Mar 2010 Posts: 85

Hello. the Tokina results look really impressive!. My Tamron 60-300 has its sweet spot around f11-f16, but yours looks around f8.
The flare/ghosting/fogginess from the Sigma at close range is actually uncorrected spherical aberration. It is quite typical from lenses with a double helical, one of them for macro. The standard helical usually moves the whole lens, but the second one (macro) only the frontal group, actually changing the focal length and introducing as a side effect some spherical aberration. This is the same procedure used in old folders to achieve focus. Closing the lens reduces the aberration, so you can select (sort of) the amount of flare/fog. Regards

Javier

Laurentiu Cristofor · Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7553 Location: Hong Kong

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

A timely test on this lens,I saw one and was wondering if it might be worth a bid due to the unusual scalemetric settings.
Very Happy

Thanks Michael and calvin.

Minolfan · Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 3437 Location: Netherlands

I have a Sigma XQ 200mm with two focusing rings. Nice close focusing (1m). Test without hood delivers results as bad as the 300mm. Just found a hood on a fleamarket, but have not tested if there is a difference (I don't have much hope).
First trials with a 55mm macro focusing (1:2) 55mm 2.8 are not very encouraging so far.
But my old 135mm 1.8 is only soft WO, and after some stopping down really good.

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7553 Location: Hong Kong

It has been sometime after I get this lens but I have no time and equipment to use it. Here is some test photo taken today with tripod, lens support and long hood, trigger by remote.

All photos are 100% crop without PP or sharpens applied. Taken with NEX 5N with ISO 200.

Test scene:

F4

F5.6

F8

F11

I think lens is quiet usable with at F8/11 with a bit CA removal and sharpen. A long hood is needed or the flare will make the photo lacks contrast.