I like the photo a lot. Everything works well together, including the can of soda!
(I don't care about the lens.) Cheers, Rick On Jan 17, 2016, at 5:46 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: > Part of a continuing series, (of people, usually young, more interested in > their hand held devices, than the events at hand). > > First the PESO > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1604247/PESO/PESO%20--%20LifeoftheParty.html > > Equipment: Pentax K5II w/Sigma Zoom 70-210mm f4.0~5.6 UC-II > > Now a the beginning of a possible multi part review of the afor mentioned > lens. A series that could be subtitled as "Photography on no budget". > > A little back story. I've been gifted with this nice, but, pedestrian Sigma > 70-210mm Zoom. Nothing special, really. I haven't been able to find out a > lot about it. It's not current in the Sigma line, but I was able to find a > PDF of an old Sigma Catalog and it was one of their offerings from 1995. > Which caused a bit trepidation on my part as that was the tale end of the > Sig[nificant] Ma[lfunctions] period of Sigmas history. > > It as near as I can tell it was intended to be an alternative to the OEM > offering in a two lens kit. I'll compare it to the Pentax F 70-210mmm though > in reality it was more likely competition for the FA 70-200mm. I haven't > done a lot of shooting with it as yet, the weather's been miserable, cold and > overcast when it's not actually rainy, and like the F 70-210 it's, kinda > slow, so I've been using it mostly indoors bumping up the ISO quite a bit. I > had to shoot an event this weekend, so I dropped it into my bag, (it doesn't > take up much room and doesn't weigh much), and shot a few available light of > pictures with it. The PESO above is one of the results. > > So how does this lens stack up? > > The build quality pretty good, but, it is mostly plastic. The aperture ring > has full marked f stops from 4-32 and half click stops for the whole range. > Where the Pentax F has both a metal inner and outer barrel the Sigma is all > Plastic. It does have a nice metal, looks like stainless steel, lens mount. > Aside from the materials the zoom ring is nicely damped, at least as pleasant > as that on the Pentax F. > > The focus ring is also nicely damped for an auto focus lens, with a > considerably shorter throw from it's closest focus to infinity than the F > 70-210 which is not damped at all. I'd say the focus feel is about that of > the Pentax FA 20-35mm maybe even a little better. > > There is provision for a bayonet mount lens hood, but it's at least 10 years > old so it would be good luck finding one, Sigma certainly doesn't seem to > offer them. > > Auto focus using the K-5II is very quick, in all but the dimmest light it > just snaps into focus. > > My preliminary judgement on it's optical characteristics is that it's not > quite as good as the Pentax F 70-210mm though I'm not sure how much image > softness is attributable to the the higher ISO's I've been using. The sigma > seems to be softer wide open throughout it's range, and seems to have lower > inherent contrast than the Pentax F, I'll be able to tell better when I get a > chance to shoot in bright sunlight. It does seem to sharpen up when stopped > down even 1 stop. > > I haven't noticed any Chromatic Aberration to speak of and there doesn't seem > to be much in the way distortion either. Straight lines seem to be in fact > straight. > > So what are the drawbacks? Let's just say for the record that based on what > I paid for it, there are none. I got it for free. However there are a > couple of piddly annoyances that I've noticed so far. Pentax Digital Camera > Utility want's to identify this lens as an F 35-105 f4-5.6 which is certainly > interesting when it tells me the photo was taken at 110mm, DXO Optics Pro 8 > thinks that it's a Sigma 70-300 and wants to apply those lens corrections. > At least they got the manufacture correct. My ancient copy of Photoshop > won't even attempt to identify the lens, even though they are > contemporaneous. Using an electronic flash the exposures can be way off, > haven't done much of that yet, so time will tell. > > So what is there to say say. The Sigma is very compact, a good 7/16 inches > shorter than the F 70-210mm at infinity and probably 30% or more lighter as > well. It takes a 55mm screw in filter, and with a decent lens hood, to cut > down on flare the contrast might even improve wide open. > > Would I recommend this lens to others? At this point I'm not sure. It seems > to be pretty decent. I've never used a Pentax FA 70-200mm f4.0~5.6 which is > supposed to be not as good as the F 70-210, and I expect this Sigma can be > had for a lot less money when you can find it, so maybe. I actually kind of > like it. > > I'll probably get a bit of use out if it, as my F 70-210 is jammed and I'm > not at all sure if it's worth even attempting to get it repaired. > > > As usual comments are welcome but may be totally ignored. > > -- > I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve > immortality through not dying. > -- Woody Allen > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. http://photo.net/photos/RickW -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
