herb said: >the Sigma 12-24 full frame is large and generally soft until stopped way >down. even then, it is soft compared to 16-45 at any aperture. the >difference is that the Sigma is better corrected for chromatic abberation >than the Sigma 15-30 that i used to have.
Isn't the 16-45 a DA lens? The Sigmas are full-frame, which accounts for their size, even at very small maximum apertures. Sigma apparently is one to push the envelope on focal lengths and such, which might account for their reputation of poor quality. My Sigma 14/3.5 is nasty at wide stops. fra said: >Do you think that it is a good idea to put the 3.5/15 on a DSLR? As >others has reported here, its performance on a DSLR is not staggering, >apparently. Is it just nostalghia for M42 glass? You could get a >better wideangle for a cheaper price probably. IMO <g> As I said, I've heard rumblings that its performance on a FILM SLR is not staggering. This design was pushing the limits in its day, which was 30 years ago. I've definitely heard the complaints about its peformance on the *istD (which is the only DSLR it fits in K-mount version). Nikon's (maybe Tamron's but it doesn't really matter) 14/2.8 apparently struggles on the higher-res nikon DSLRs, so it may not just be Pentax's problem. I've NEVER seen a nikon DSLR used with a nikon 15/3.5 on it, which intrigues me. The reason I posted, though, was to ask about the theory of "a better wideangle for a cheaper price" in M42 mount, and I haven't heard many suggestions. Remember that the goal is to use a Canon DSLR as a digital back for my huge existing M42 lens collection. I could always get a Canon AF ultra-wide, or a cheaper Canon MF ultra-wide with an adapter, but that would be a violation of the initial intent (M42 on EOS). Mostly it IS nostalgia for the old M42 glass (I've got state-of-the-art Nikon stuff for unromantic functional needs), which is better built and better optically than a lot of what has been made since. There's also something deliciously sassy about being able to take great pictures with the latest Canon technology wedded to a pre-set Takumar from the '60s. The down-side of '60s and '70s lens design appears to be that anything wider than 20mm was and is very hard to come by, and I can't afford the nifty Canon full-frame DSLR to get around the problem. DJE
