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 lens history
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:02 pm    Post subject: Sigma lens history Reply with quote

I am very interested in the history of sigma lenses. I searched the internet for detailed information: which lens was made in which year. I could not find this information. Even on the official websites of sigma, that information is not available in detail.

Therefore my question for links from websites that show the detailed lens history of sigma.

Who can help me with links.

Greetings pinkf


PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Sigma lens history Reply with quote

pinkf wrote:
I am very interested in the history of sigma lenses. I searched the internet for detailed information: which lens was made in which year. I could not find this information. Even on the official websites of sigma, that information is not available in detail.

Therefore my question for links from websites that show the detailed lens history of sigma.

Who can help me with links.

Greetings pinkf



There is THE link
https://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lounge/sigma-history-1961-2010

pbfacts


PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Sigma lens history Reply with quote

PBFACTS wrote:

There is THE link
https://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lounge/sigma-history-1961-2010

pbfacts


I think this website is not complete. Sigma made much more lenses that are mentioned here.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Sigma lens history Reply with quote

pinkf wrote:
PBFACTS wrote:

There is THE link
https://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lounge/sigma-history-1961-2010

pbfacts


I think this website is not complete. Sigma made much more lenses that are mentioned here.


except non sold lenses (as the af interchangeable mount series ) it seems to me complete


PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My 18mm f3.5 ys lens is not there.
Also the 135mm f1.8 ys lens.
Etc.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found this sometime back and I'm supposed to give the link but I don't have it anymore. Sorry for the copyright.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks!

This is the periode 1970 - 1980.

I am also looking for the rest up to 2021.

pinkf


PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phalbert wrote:
I found this sometime back and I'm supposed to give the link but I don't have it anymore. Sorry for the copyright.
. . .

Thanks for sharing the interesting information. I don't have a link to the original source either, but member Pancolart wrote that the chart came from ksmt.com :
http://forum.mflenses.com/sigma-ys-system-focusing-lenses-t38337.html

And I wonder how accurate the data are? The chart states that the XQ 135mm f/1.8 has 4 elements in 4 groups. But my own copy of that lens has 6 elements in 4 groups.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

55, I've seen somewhere that the XQ and YS differ. The one is a 4/4 the other 6/4. I have to search a bit. I do have the YS.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In fact I just realised it's in that table. So this info goes a bit against the accepted info that they are similar... Anyone willing to dismantle his XQ ? Wink


PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phalbert wrote:
In fact I just realised it's in that table. So this info goes a bit against the accepted info that they are similar... Anyone willing to dismantle his XQ ? Wink


At your service, Phalbert. Wink
Actually, it was a couple years ago when I disassembled my XQ 135 f/1.8 for cleaning. It has 4 groups and 6 elements. The second group has 3 elements cemented together.

There were multiple iterations of the Sigma 135 f1.8, so there certainly could have been differing optical layouts. But both my YS and XQ 1.8s have the same 4/6 scheme.
Here's my XQ:

#1


PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow ! Impressed ! You make it almost look easy. So few parts ? That means the info in the table is not 100 % ok. And now I know whom I should ask if I were to try to open a lens sometime. 😊 How is your resolution WO with the XQ ?


PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow ! I am also impressed !

gr. pinkf


PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

55 wrote:

Actually, it was a couple years ago when I disassembled my XQ 135 f/1.8 for cleaning. It has 4 groups and 6 elements. The second group has 3 elements cemented together.


That's quite interesting. I have a copy of this in either YS or XQ series, I forget which. I have never disassembled it.

The Sigma XQ series brochure posted here http://forum.mflenses.com/sigma-xq-lenses-t73290.html seems to show a 5/6 scheme, but in the accompanying text refers to it as having a 4/6 scheme. Possibly this is the brochure most other internet references were based on, and the mistake has spread from there. It would be interesting to see if anyone has disassembled a 5/6 version.

edit - this lens may assume a higher level of favouritism with myself now (for no good reason), I'm a sucker for a cemented triplet.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

55 wrote:
Phalbert wrote:
In fact I just realised it's in that table. So this info goes a bit against the accepted info that they are similar... Anyone willing to dismantle his XQ ? Wink


At your service, Phalbert. Wink
Actually, it was a couple years ago when I disassembled my XQ 135 f/1.8 for cleaning. It has 4 groups and 6 elements. The second group has 3 elements cemented together.

There were multiple iterations of the Sigma 135 f1.8, so there certainly could have been differing optical layouts. But both my YS and XQ 1.8s have the same 4/6 scheme.
Here's my XQ:

#1

Excellent work! Lens brochure may contain some false information which will become widespread.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I looked at my copy once I got home today. It is an XQ version, but still with YS mount. My copy has the triple cemented element. I wonder if they can be found in the 5/6 version too, and whether that version was later or earlier than the 4/6 one.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phalbert wrote:
Wow ! Impressed ! You make it almost look easy. So few parts ? That means the info in the table is not 100 % ok. And now I know whom I should ask if I were to try to open a lens sometime. 😊 How is your resolution WO with the XQ ?


Yes, I do enjoy tinkering with lenses. And you're so right, Phalbert. Sigma created a wonderfully simple and logical design for that 135. It's one of the easier lenses I've had the pleasure to work on.

If pixel peeping, my XQ is soft with some glow wide open. And its rendering has more "character" than my other fast 135s.
And that's a good thing! I wouldn't want all my lenses to be "perfect"! Smile

If you'd like to see for yourself, here's a brief comparison of an Azalea:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/158740233@N04/albums/72157718559923100/with/51083146122/


Alun Thomas wrote:
. . .
The Sigma XQ series brochure posted here http://forum.mflenses.com/sigma-xq-lenses-t73290.html seems to show a 5/6 scheme, but in the accompanying text refers to it as having a 4/6 scheme. . .

Right. I've also wondered about that.


calvin83 wrote:

Excellent work! Lens brochure may contain some false information which will become widespread.

Thanks, calvin.


pinkf wrote:
Wow ! I am also impressed !

gr. pinkf

Thank you. But I'm sorry for sidetracking your topic, pinkf. I blame Phalbert for leading me astray. Wink

Regarding Sigma history, all I can do is point you toward Sigma literature. In addition to the XQ brochure Alun Thomas linked to, there's a 1980s brochure here:
https://www.cameramanuals.org/booklets/sigma_lens_booklet.pdf

And here are scans from a 1977 brochure I own:




#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


#8



Unfortunately, Sigma didn't include data for the 135mm f/1.8 in their specifications table. Confused


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Awesome infos and docs ! And mea culpa for straying off topic, but I'm sure pink_f enjoys it too ! Wink


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I notice both the 135 f1,8 and the 200 f2,8 come in YS and XQ versions, with the YSs having one more element. They should be the better ones. I had a friend who bought a 200 f2,8 secondhand on my recomendation (1981 I think, I only saw a big tele and assumed it can't be bad... no idea if it was YS or XQ...) He was not happy with me at all, coz he never managed a sharp picture with it. But we were both novice and he must have done one or 2 rhings wrong, I'm sure. Thank You Dog


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many thanks for all that info!

Gr pinkf


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

55 wrote:
Phalbert wrote:
Wow ! Impressed ! You make it almost look easy. So few parts ? That means the info in the table is not 100 % ok. And now I know whom I should ask if I were to try to open a lens sometime. 😊 How is your resolution WO with the XQ ?


Yes, I do enjoy tinkering with lenses. And you're so right, Phalbert. Sigma created a wonderfully simple and logical design for that 135. It's one of the easier lenses I've had the pleasure to work on.

If pixel peeping, my XQ is soft with some glow wide open. And its rendering has more "character" than my other fast 135s.
And that's a good thing! I wouldn't want all my lenses to be "perfect"! Smile

If you'd like to see for yourself, here's a brief comparison of an Azalea:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/158740233@N04/albums/72157718559923100/with/51083146122/


Alun Thomas wrote:
. . .
The Sigma XQ series brochure posted here http://forum.mflenses.com/sigma-xq-lenses-t73290.html seems to show a 5/6 scheme, but in the accompanying text refers to it as having a 4/6 scheme. . .

Right. I've also wondered about that.


calvin83 wrote:

Excellent work! Lens brochure may contain some false information which will become widespread.

Thanks, calvin.


pinkf wrote:
Wow ! I am also impressed !

gr. pinkf

Thank you. But I'm sorry for sidetracking your topic, pinkf. I blame Phalbert for leading me astray. Wink

Regarding Sigma history, all I can do is point you toward Sigma literature. In addition to the XQ brochure Alun Thomas linked to, there's a 1980s brochure here:
https://www.cameramanuals.org/booklets/sigma_lens_booklet.pdf

And here are scans from a 1977 brochure I own:

Unfortunately, Sigma didn't include data for the 135mm f/1.8 in their specifications table. Confused


Very precious information. Somehow the 100mm f/2.8 macro (if my memory is correct) is not included either. The lens is from the same series. The particular copy I got has hazy element.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phalbert wrote:
I notice both the 135 f1,8 and the 200 f2,8 come in YS and XQ versions, with the YSs having one more element. They should be the better ones. I had a friend who bought a 200 f2,8 secondhand on my recomendation (1981 I think, I only saw a big tele and assumed it can't be bad... no idea if it was YS or XQ...) He was not happy with me at all, coz he never managed a sharp picture with it. But we were both novice and he must have done one or 2 rhings wrong, I'm sure. Thank You Dog

The XQ were supposed of better optical quality (Xetra Quality)
The ys are the standard version with interchangeable mount


PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

New source

Look at https://sigma-romandie.com/liste-historique-gamme-optique.shtml

gr. pinkf


PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found an interesting website about the sigma lens history.

Look at https://clever-geek.imtqy.com/articles/4035347/index.html

gr. pinkf