Sigma Minitel 200mm f/4

[TrueLoveOne]

This lens seems to be somewhat rare... there's hardly any or no info about it. The only one i can find is the 200mm f/3.5, but not the Minitel f/4 version.

I can buy it together with some other lenses that i already have.... but strange/rare lenses always atract....

Does anybody here know the lens, or have it possibly? Is it worth it?

Thank you!!

[luisalegria]

Do you have a picture?

[TrueLoveOne]

These are the only pics i have of it, there's a hood on the front of it:

[luisalegria]

Looks like metal grip.
Probably an early type for Sigma, mid 1970's.

[Attila]

I had Sigma Micro Macro 100mm f2.8 , was a big lens for 100mm, macro mode was worst what I ever seen, simple I couldn't get any sharp image at non macro mode I got decent sharp result. Finally lens landed at antique market, somebody took it for peanuts.

[ZoneV]

I bought such a lens on Sunday.
Normally I am not very attracted from Sigma lenses - but after I found out that the Sigma "macro" focusing ring could be used as defocus bokeh control a bit like in the Nikon DC Nikkor lenses I buy some of these lenses. Have found the f/3.5 version too this weekend.

My lens looks as new. The metal hood could be reversed and stored on the lens - so it need not much room.
My lens had a on inner side dirty back lens, probably oil from the focus mechanism. Easy to clean this - but it seems I left some dirt.
The Scalematic feature is a scale that show the actual focused object size - for 24x36mm - but not working for the "macro" range.
The YS chancing mount system is good for us alternative lens lovers

I have only made small tests for image quality - only viewed on the Display, EOS 1000D: Full open contrast and sharpness are not brilliant. At 5.6 still the contrast seems still low. At f/8 is looks good.
After first tests I would say this lens has low IQ. But I think it is good enough for me to start experimenting with the bokeh influence tests.

[stevemark]

[LittleAlex]

One week ago I nearly bought Sigma AF 180 mm f/ 5.6 APO Macro UC for Canon EOS. After exploring many revues, which claimed that it is exceptional lens.

It was from Sigma’s old stock, which means, that it will not work with the modern Canon digital camera. So, the praise was quite adequate - $100

I had an intention to use it with Sigma MC-11 Mount Converter/Lens Adapter (Sigma EF-Mount Lenses to Sony E). With that Converter the diaphragm for old Sigma lenses works OK. Only the AF is really awful. Completely useless. However – it is the same with all EOS lenses (including the native Canon one, but excluding the modern Sigma lenses with EOS mount).

However, when it came by mail, I discovered that it has problems with diaphragm mechanic – it had been fully opened only in 50 percent of shuts. So, I decided to stay away from that sample.

Imbued with the lens, I started to search for the other sample – possibly with the other bayonet system. It was no success. However, I discovered two other Sigma macro lenses. Which also were very favorably spoken of.

One was Sigma MF 90 f/2.8 macro for Pentax bayonet. It was presented for $43. And the second was Sigma AF 50mm 2.8 EX macro. Which had the problems with AF. It was presented for $50.

After some consideration I decided to tale them both.

I already have Converter Pentax/EOS. And because Sigma AF 50mm was from the old stock, which would not work with digital Canons, the broken AF was for me on no importance. Both I am able to use with my Sony a7s by Sigma MC-11 Mount Converter.

So, I ordered both, tested then, and generally am happy with the optical performance. Only I have to use both in the manual mode, but for me it is OK.

There are first testing samples for was Sigma MF 90 f/2.8 macro:

https://forum.mflenses.com/sigma-mf-90-f-2-8-macro-for-pentax-t85393.html

Still am looking for Sigma AF 180 mm f/ 5.6 APO Macro.

[stevemark]

Sigma 2.8/135mm, 4/200mm and 2.8/200mm of the same series:



All of them have the strange "macro" mode which moves the front group separately, introducing a CRAZY amount of aberrations at close range. The performance of both the 2.8/135mm as well as the 4/200mm is really low; the 2.8/200mm is acceptable for portraits at f2.8 (low contrast) and rather OK at f8 (good detail, low contrast, very low CAs).

An unusual set of lenses indeed!

S