Scale of 1 to 10. How would you rate the old Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro lens today?


HarisF1

Link Posted 03/01/2019 - 00:04
I would suggest that all third party manufacturers have their own gremlins to deal with. From Samyang and Irix's QC issues to Tamron's problem with aperture faults (70-200 and possibly 17-50 too), they all have difficulties.

I guess it's all down to how much of a fuss is made about the problems that people encounter. The SDM and K-30 aperture blocks suggest that Pentax are lazy when it comes to designing good parts but it'd be more interesting to see the bigger picture, maybe as a percentage of the total number of products sold.

davidwozhere

Link Posted 03/01/2019 - 00:25
The most popular one of the lot is the Tamron 90mm. It can be used either AF or manual, gives a good working distance and is exceptionally sharp. You can find them on E Bay for about 150 - but make sure it is the Di version (Digital). The earlier ones were for film cameras and can reflect light backwards onto the sensor, giving an annoying purple blob in the middle! *IF you can find one, the Pentax-M f4, 100mm is a superb beast but it has to be used on M with the Green button for metering.
Alternatively, you can get a K-mount to M42 adapter so you can use the old m42 screw fit lenses. A good set of M42 extension tubes will cost about 6 and a Takumar 55mm lens about 15. Screw the rings onto the camera in varying combinations for different magnifications (and working distances) and screw the 55mm on the end. You will learn a great deal with such a set up because it's just you and the camera and its all manual.
Most macro lenses have the front element well recessed and often don't need a hood but if you use normal lenses (e.g. on tubes) a hood will be essential. I even put a hood on my macro lenses to exclude all unwanted stray light. The original Asahi 49mm job for 135mm lenses is ideal.
Both the *istDS and the K5 are incurably addicted to old glass

My page on Photocrowd - link

derek897

Link Posted 03/01/2019 - 00:30
Kim C wrote:
Defragged wrote:
Quote:
walkeja wrote:
0 it's a Sigma.
Might be good opticaly but very poor mechanicaly.

What do you base that on,
Plenty of us happily using sigma on here.
No better or worse than any other brand.

I've several Sigma lenses, 8-16mm 12-24mm, 17-70mm, 100-300mm and they are all superb lenses.

There have been various threads both here and on other forums about Sigma lenses breaking, either the zoom mech of the AF. To be fair to Sigma, it has also been said that they have repaired the lens at reasonable cost. Then there was the case of a certain lens having to be returned to Sigma for the mount to be changed as it wouldn't fit the K1. Add to that the threads about incorrect exif data because Sigma back engineer their lenses rather than pay royalties. I may well have missed them but I have not seen such threads from any of the other after market lens producers.

So to go back to the original post quoted "might be good optically but very poor mechanically.




I don't get it, we as pentax users should know better than to believe everything that's posted on forums, if we wanted to we could find posts and threads about failures and breakages and quality control in our own brand , in canikon, samyang, tokina , oly, pano, so knee
And every other marque out there, I have had and used many sigma lenses, didn't like all the ones I've tried, but that's down to my preferences, others I've absolutely loved. I'm sure there's been some that have broken, but I've never had one break or fail on me.

So to see someone completely write off a brand, prompted the question on what He was basing his rating on.


Ah I see Haris has already made this point anyway
I know what i like, If not always why.
Last Edited by derek897 on 03/01/2019 - 00:32

richandfleur

Link Posted 03/01/2019 - 09:47
Those test shots look very good to me.

Helpful

Kim C

Link Posted 03/01/2019 - 10:37
Quote:

I don't get it, we as pentax users should know better than to believe everything that's posted on forums, if we wanted to we could find posts and threads about failures and breakages and quality control in our own brand , in canikon, samyang, tokina , oly, pano, so knee
And every other marque out there, I have had and used many sigma lenses, didn't like all the ones I've tried, but that's down to my preferences, others I've absolutely loved. I'm sure there's been some that have broken, but I've never had one break or fail on me.

So to see someone completely write off a brand, prompted the question on what He was basing his rating on.

I wasn't trying to write off Sigma as a brand. I have used various Sigma lenses and still have a couple including the 8-16 (Well I have the 8-16 some of the time as it is my daughter's favourite lens and she keeps borrowing it)
However, I also feel that based on just a few posts it is wrong to say that Sigma is a fantastic brand because the person saying it has never had a problem and like the ones they have.
And no I don't based my judgement on a few posts on the internet. But as someone else said on this forum, if someone said the had a K50 and a 16-50 lens and had never had a problem, it also doesn't mean that there isn't one. Nor do I trust many so called reviews. On PF the 50-200 DA-L scores more highly than the 55-300. Having used both I believe that to be incorrect. So unless I see a review or set of comments from either a name I trust or someone who has done a direct comparison rather than hearsay, I treat it with an open mind. Also, if you check my answer about longer macro lenses above, I did include Sigma.

Sigma in my experience produce some lenses which are very good optically with some star performers. From many posts and not just a few odd ones, I also believe there aftermarket service is good and reasonably priced. BUT, I also believe there is quite a general consensus that Sigma back engineer lenses and this has caused some problems in some lenses. AND having used them side by side over many years, I do not believe that Sigma have quite the same build quality as many others. However that is also reflected in their far more reasonable pricing.

derek897

Link Posted 03/01/2019 - 11:48
Kim, if you look back through the posts, my question was in direct reply to Walkeja's post, as he has a tendency to write inflammatory posts and then disappear.
I was specifically asking Him what his rating of 0 was based on, as if we were to apply the same criteria to our own brand, what score could we expect, given sdm, aperture block and a few others.
You came in on the question and defended his post,

Time to stop hijacking the OP thread,
He was given an old mf lens, which from the sample shots, it appears to be operating as well as any 50mm macro , new or old.
Maybe just enjoy the lens and don't worry about scores.
If it's bugs you're after, then a longer fl will really help.
I think mike-p has a 180mm macro for sale, if you have the budget for it, if I could afford it I'd buy it myself, if not, any 100mm macro will still help get you what you want.
Derek
I know what i like, If not always why.

Helpful

walkeja

Link Posted 03/01/2019 - 14:42
derek897 wrote:
walkeja wrote:
0 it's a Sigma.
Might be good opticaly but very poor mechanicaly.

What do you base that on,
Plenty of us happily using sigma on here.
No better or worse than any other brand.

In 1999, I went to Florida and I bought a Pentax 80-200mm zoom whilst out there. Before I bought it the salesman offered me the equivalent Sigma zoom. On adjusting the zoom it felt as if there was grit in the mechanism.

Comment is based on that!
Pentax K1-ii and MZ6
Pentax Lenses 28-80 F, 300 DA*, 80-200 F, 35 F2.4 AL, M50 F1.7, 28-105 DFA, 20 F4 SMC
ONE UNITED Member

derek897

Link Posted 03/01/2019 - 15:19
walkeja wrote:
derek897 wrote:
Quote:
0 it's a Sigma.
Might be good opticaly but very poor mechanicaly.

What do you base that on,
Plenty of us happily using sigma on here.
No better or worse than any other brand.

In 1999, I went to Florida and I bought a Pentax 80-200mm zoom whilst out there. Before I bought it the salesman offered me the equivalent Sigma zoom. On adjusting the zoom it felt as if there was grit in the mechanism.

Comment is based on that!

I really don't mean to be dismissive, and I appreciate that you came back and qualified your reasoning,
But to completely dismiss an entire brand today, Based on a " gritty feeling" you had on what I think would have been a standard / not high end lens 20 years ago is a bit excessive.
At least to me it is.

Again, thanks for clarifying 👍👍👍

Derek
I know what i like, If not always why.

walkeja

Link Posted 05/01/2019 - 10:38
derek897 wrote:
walkeja wrote:
Quote:
walkeja wrote:
0 it's a Sigma.
Might be good opticaly but very poor mechanicaly.

What do you base that on,
Plenty of us happily using sigma on here.
No better or worse than any other brand.

In 1999, I went to Florida and I bought a Pentax 80-200mm zoom whilst out there. Before I bought it the salesman offered me the equivalent Sigma zoom. On adjusting the zoom it felt as if there was grit in the mechanism.

Comment is based on that!

I really don't mean to be dismissive, and I appreciate that you came back and qualified your reasoning,
But to completely dismiss an entire brand today, Based on a " gritty feeling" you had on what I think would have been a standard / not high end lens 20 years ago is a bit excessive.
At least to me it is.

Again, thanks for clarifying 👍👍👍

Derek



Having worked for Rover I completely diisagree. The cars they were making at the end were as good as, or better than the competition, but people derided them because of the Marina and Allegro.
Pentax K1-ii and MZ6
Pentax Lenses 28-80 F, 300 DA*, 80-200 F, 35 F2.4 AL, M50 F1.7, 28-105 DFA, 20 F4 SMC
ONE UNITED Member
Last Edited by walkeja on 05/01/2019 - 10:38

derek897

Link Posted 05/01/2019 - 12:03
walkeja wrote:


Having worked for Rover I completely diisagree. The cars they were making at the end were as good as, or better than the competition, but people derided them because of the Marina and Allegro.

Sounds like you're making my point for me.

You are doing to sigma exactly what people did to Rover because of the Marina and Allegro
I know what i like, If not always why.

walkeja

Link Posted 05/01/2019 - 13:27
derek897 wrote:
walkeja wrote:


Having worked for Rover I completely diisagree. The cars they were making at the end were as good as, or better than the competition, but people derided them because of the Marina and Allegro.

Sounds like you're making my point for me.

You are doing to sigma exactly what people did to Rover because of the Marina and Allegro

No, I have stated that everyone has a tendency to do it and as a result some companies suffer.
Pentax K1-ii and MZ6
Pentax Lenses 28-80 F, 300 DA*, 80-200 F, 35 F2.4 AL, M50 F1.7, 28-105 DFA, 20 F4 SMC
ONE UNITED Member

derek897

Link Posted 05/01/2019 - 14:06
I give up,
I know what i like, If not always why.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.