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

Sigma YS 3,5 18mm voor Olympus OM
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:20 pm    Post subject: Sigma YS 3,5 18mm voor Olympus OM Reply with quote
I bought this lens in Jan 1978 and enjoyed it for years. For its time, this was a great lens.

At f8 the lens is sharp across the entire field of view. And there is little optical distortion. The added images make this clear. These are digitally made images of a black and white negative and a color slide.

#1


#2


#3


#4


PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Sigma YS 3,5 18mm voor Olympus OM Reply with quote
pinkf wrote:
I bought this lens in Jan 1978 and enjoyed it for years. For its time, this was a great lens.

At f8 the lens is sharp across the entire field of view. And there is little optical distortion. The added images make this clear. These are digitally made images of a black and white negative and a color slide.



Nice photos! There seems to be a 18mm f/3.2 version as well (maybe my memory isn't correct).


PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Like 1 These were sold in US as Spiratone http://forum.mflenses.com/spiratone-18mm-rectilinear-three-versions-t32670.html


PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2021 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
After the F/3.5 and F/3.2 versions, Sigma also released an F/2.8 filtermatic version. Of my copies, the 3.5 and 3.2 are both YS mount, but the 2.8 is not. All three are capable of good results (with the inevitable rider - for the era). I had to buy the F/3.2 lens twice, as the first one had a bizarre orange staining of one of the rear lenses, which could not be cleaned off. They are all though, comprehensively bested by my copy of the Spiratone/Tokina 18/3.5, which is actually the 17mm lens relabelled by Spiratone. A good copy of that lens is exceptional, also beating my copy of Tamrons 17mm lens.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2021 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the Spiratone version the YS 18mm f3.5 in SR mount.
A couple things I remember from shooting with it. Feel and build quality were excellent.
A nice lens to use, except for one thing. Flare. You had to be real careful where the sun was in your pics.
A good hood for this lens was mandatory. Unfortunately at the time I didn't have one. I do now.
Need to get this lens out and give it another try.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice, i must include it into my dreamy landscape lenses list.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My bw photo, shown as above, has been printed on 150x100cm for on the wall.

Now you can see how good this old sigma lens is, very nice!

pinkf


PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alun Thomas wrote:
After the F/3.5 and F/3.2 versions, Sigma also released an F/2.8 filtermatic version. Of my copies, the 3.5 and 3.2 are both YS mount, but the 2.8 is not. All three are capable of good results (with the inevitable rider - for the era). I had to buy the F/3.2 lens twice, as the first one had a bizarre orange staining of one of the rear lenses, which could not be cleaned off. They are all though, comprehensively bested by my copy of the Spiratone/Tokina 18/3.5, which is actually the 17mm lens relabelled by Spiratone. A good copy of that lens is exceptional, also beating my copy of Tamrons 17mm lens.


My f2.8 is in YS Mount. However, it is not labelled XQ/Filtermatic/XQ Filtermatic, so it must've been a later model- but it had to have been before 1980, because the version dated for that year described in this press release [1] mentions how "only the front 7 groups of elements are moved while focusing". This is not the case for mine- the entire optical block moves back and forth.
Additionally, it has a 77mm filter thread, which I haven't seen listed in any Sigma lens 'lists'.



From what I can gather the late 1970s was a 'changeover' period for Sigma, where the 'special features' XQ branding [2] went away in favour of toning things down, so it doesn't surprise me that a version like mine could be made. Additionally, this 18mm lens went through quite alot of changes within five years, perhaps more than any other ultrawide SLR lens at the time - you had the Widerama 18mm f3.5, then dropped to be the XQ 18mm f3.2, then XQ 18mm f2.8, XQ filtermatic XQ 18mm... Embarassed

Incidentally, might aswell mention what I got up to with my copy. I removed the 62mm -> 77mm filter 'hood'- the threads don't sit directly 'ontop' of the front element, but 'around' it, which I think(?) allows me to get alittle closer to the front element. With what, I hear you say? Well...


Sony VCL-DH0774 0.75x, with 62mm -> 74mm step ring. Note original filter hood to the left.

For whatever reason, this converter ends up being the widest well corrected one I've found off the shelf.
It's only two elements, and only designed to take the 31mm equiv DSC-H7/H9 lens to 23.25mm. So what gives? Why can it go down to about 16mm FF? Looking at the manual/setup photos, all becomes clear-





It seems because of how far forward it sits, it had to be both quite large, and 'well corrected' across a substantial portion of the 'glass'. You know what I mean!

So what sort of pictures can this combination produce? 18 * 0.75 = 13.5mm, with no mechanical vignetting, with some barrel distortion added- all shot on film, f8/f11 and scanned:


Full res- https://i.postimg.cc/y6zc4z6k/2021-03-06-0012-1.jpg

However, as you can already tell, there is substantial astigmatism at the edges which still remains at f8/f11, requiring either careful framing or for safety cropping the frame, leaving you about 16mm equivalent. This lens really can't be used at lesser apertures, the circle of definition gets even slightly smaller ontop of edges going bad. I couldn't do f16 because I didn't have enough light for it.

This astigmatism however can be used for cool creative effect:


Full res- https://i.postimg.cc/YrFYsSH5/2021-03-06-0006.jpg

Full res- https://i.postimg.cc/q4TXW2gj/2021-03-06-00066.jpg

Let's also remember just how long it took/how much optical work was required to go from 18mm to 12mm full frame, and then remember I'm going to 13.5mm using only two spherical elements (albeit strong curvatures) and probably getting a poor, on the cusp of tolerable image at f16. That isn't bad going. With modern aspherics/computing power the 12mm Heliar is only f5.6, and the Hologon 15mm f8(!) is composed of very bespoke-shaped, relatively high index of refraction (all >=1.Cool glass.


[1] https://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/sigma-18mm-f2-8-launched-february-1980/?fbclid=IwAR3ChT21csqFUCzzrE6MlSYSI23_JNRe77ol_ZYVCOrU_TJSkuGgoBRZgX8
[2] seen in this Sigma XQ catalogue http://forum.mflenses.com/sigma-xq-lenses-t73290.html [/b][img][/img]


PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This stunning lens was released in 1972.
So that was 50 years ago.

A special celebration, as this was the 1st affordable super wide-angle lens, which could be purchased for many camera brands because of the ys mount!


PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2022 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The edges would make it unusable for me.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I tried a Sigma YS 24/2.8 some months ago. It was an absolute dog optically; unusable untill about f/8. But they did a good job with the later Sigma Super Wide 24/2.8.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1