I've had a Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro for years. It has always been a joy to work with. BUT - I recently added a Petnax DA-F 100 f2.8 macro. The reason - chromatic aberration on the K10D and the Kiron, particularly at high magnifications. The CA was visible using the Kiron on the *ist-D body, but is more apparent on the K10D.
The CA can be minimized using Camera Raw - but not eliminated, and is less manageable in some shots than in others. I'd suggest doing some vigorous testing of the Kiron vs the Sigma and see which one is superior re image quality. There's no question in my mind that, on a digital body, the Pentax DA-F is better than the Kiron. Don't how the Sigma sould stack up vs. the Kiron though. Personally, I'm hanging onto both lenses - there's something about the feel of the Kiron on an LX that I doubt the plasticy DA-F lens will match. And the Kiron's cumbersome and slow manual focus also translates into very precise manual focus. But - it's use will be limited to film shooting. - MCC syb vis wrote: > I recently purchased a secondhand K10D kit with a Sigma macro lens > 105mm F2.8 DG EX autofocus lens. > > I already had a Kiron macro lens 105mm F2.8 PK/A. In excellent shape as well. > > Now, I hesitate. Which one to sell? > > Must say that the focus ring on the Kiron is very solid. That's nice, > but it also makes it a little hard to work with quickly. And that my > first living insect pictures succeeded with the Sigma. > > See some on fotodag.fotopic.net > . > Do you have suggestions, experience knowledge or did you confront the > same dilemma? Wat should I do? Or, maybe, should I better ask which > lens will raise most money? > > Cheers > Syb > -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, Michigan www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
