View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
!Karen
Joined: 20 Jul 2013 Posts: 836 Location: Belgium Baby
|
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:35 pm Post subject: Sigma 14mm F3.5 |
|
|
!Karen wrote:
This lens is in FD mount.
I have yet to shoot my first roll of film with it but I got to take a look at some prints the previous owner made with it and looks promising.
Rediculously wide!
HUGE front element. A smaller diameter than the Arsat but much rounder.
One might think it is a fisheye but it is a rectilinear lens.
The outside of the lens isn't in very good condition. I believe it got the 'zen' finish. It is sticky here and there and the white letters/numbers have flaked of at some places. I have cleaned the front caps and the sticky 'coat' came of great however I am a bit reluctant to persue the cleaning on the body of the lens as I fear the tekst might come off even further. Glass is in pristine condition. At the mount of the lens you can insert filters.
Just like the Arsat I cannot find much info on this lens. I can find some f2.8 AF versions but nothing on a MF f3.5 so once again if anyone can provide me with more info (history, perfomance, ...) on this lens that would be great.
_________________ FLICKR PHOTOSTREAM |
|
Back to top |
|
|
OPAL
Joined: 11 Dec 2012 Posts: 354
|
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:46 pm Post subject: SIGMA 3,5/14mm |
|
|
OPAL wrote:
A friend of mine bought one with NIKON mount for its D800 for a "very friendly" price in a good condition! Distortions are acceptable but visible, and the corners are not very sharp and the brillance does not meet todays standard anymore! For amateur use maybe acceptable! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hinnerker
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 Posts: 929 Location: Germany near Kiel
Expire: 2015-08-09
|
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hinnerker wrote:
This 14mm and another Sigma Lens, the 18-35mm/3.5-4.5 are easily to convert to Canon EOS EF Mount.
Use Google translate to read this threads... first the 18-35mm to read and see, how this is was simply done
http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?t=15332
And after reading, you can do it in nearly the same way with the 14mm/3.5...
http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?t=15394
The quality is good, also on a fullframe cam.. most of the times you will use this lens not wide open... so its a good piece of glas @f8!
Cheers
Henry _________________ some light-painting lens stuff..
... and an EOS 5D MKII
www.digicamclub.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
WolverineX
Joined: 19 Apr 2009 Posts: 1693 Location: Zagreb , Croatia , Europe
|
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WolverineX wrote:
http://omexperience.wordpress.com/lenses/sigma-14mm-f3-5/ _________________ my tools:Oly E-M5 + 45mm/1.8 + Oly E-520 + 12-60 + 14-42 + 70-300 + Sigma 105mm + FL-50R + EC20 + SRF-11 ring flash
http://forum.mflenses.com/wolverinex-testing-my-lenses-series-link-list-t39524.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
OPAL
Joined: 11 Dec 2012 Posts: 354
|
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
OPAL wrote:
Yahvel wrote: |
is this lens any good ? |
It depends how high your demands are! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008 Posts: 6950 Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
OPAL wrote: |
Yahvel wrote: |
is this lens any good ? |
It depends how high your demands are! |
Yes, and the intended use.
I would enjoy it for quirky shots exposing the perspective distortion. If you are a pixel peeper or want pin sharp corners wide open, it will disappoint. _________________ Casual attendance these days |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3953 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2024 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
There are obviously two different versions of the Sigma 3.5/14mm with clearly different optical computations:
Both lenses shown here have the Minolta A bayonet.
The lens on the left is the older version 1, also available as an MF lens, introduced probably around 1990. Its focal length is shorter than version 2.
The one on the right is newer version 2 (my sample was originally bought in 1998). It is larger and has a visibly longer focal length than the earlier version 1.
EDIT Version 1 is from 1991, version 2 from 1993, and the f2.8 version came 1998 (see https://sigma-romandie.ch/liste-historique-gamme-optique)
I have two samples of version 2, and one sample of version 1.
Interestingly, no one seems to care about differentiating between these two versions when writing about the Sigma 3.5/14mm. Everybody, however, seems to agree that the Sigma 3.5/14mm is very susceptible to backlight and flare, and that it's basically useless on digital cameras. Interestingly some users claim that it was quite good on film.
If we look into one of my lenses we can spot the reason for this behaviour. At least one innner glass surface is full of small (oil?) droplets:
This is probably the worst pollution I have ever seen inside a lens. The two other samples are not exactly as bad, but there's enough haze and smaller droplets to make all three lenses useless.
I figured that cleaning those lenses and restoring them to their original performance would be fun, and so I started dismantling the worst sample (a version 2). Details will follow in a separate thread in the repair forum!
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch
Last edited by stevemark on Sat Jan 27, 2024 2:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BrianSVP
Joined: 09 Jun 2023 Posts: 343 Location: Philadelphia
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2024 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BrianSVP wrote:
Oil haze is exceptionally common in Sigma primes of that generation, also affecting most examples the 28mm Mini Wide and the 24mm Super Wide. The glue on them can unfortunately be really stubborn, too - good luck with your repair!
stevemark wrote: |
There are obviously two different versions of the Sigma 3.5/14mm with clearly different optical computations:
Both lenses shown here have the Minolta A bayonet.
The lens on the left is the older version 1, also available as an MF lens, introduced probably around 1990. Its focal length is shorter than version 2.
The one on the right is newer version 2 (my sample was originally bought in 1998). It is larger and has a visibly longer focal length than the earlier version 1.
I have two samples of version 2, and one sample of version 1.
Interestingly, no one seems to care about differentiating between these two versions when writing about the Sigma 3.5/14mm. Everybody, however, seems to agree that the Sigma 3.5/14mm is very susceptible to backlight and flare, and that it's basically useless on digital cameras. Interestingly some users claim that it was quite good on film.
If we look into one of my lenses we can spot the reason for this behaviour. At least one innner glass surface is full of small (oil?) droplets:
This is probably the worst pollution I have ever seen inside a lens. The two other samples are not exactly as bad, but there's enough haze and smaller droplets to make all three lenses useless.
I figured that cleaning those lenses and restoring them to their original performance would be fun, and so I started dismantling the worst sample (a version 2). Details will follow in a separate thread in the repair forum!
S |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3953 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2024 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
That's how far I got - now I'm stuck:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1581461.html#1581461
The oil drops are inside the front element (NOT near the aperture as I had assumed), and I haven't found a way to dismantle the huge front element ... Any suggestions?
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|