Nice shot - I agree with Ann about the colour cast but otherwise enjoyable.
I think I had that same lens (or very similar, at least) and used it on my film cameras for a while before replacing it with a Pentax F 70-210. I don't think I ever used it on digital. Sigma lenses (older ones, anyway) seem to be identified oddly by software. When I had an 18-125 Sigma, it always got identified as Pentax F 28-80mm F3.5-4.5, and more than a few of shots taken with the lens were outside that focal length range. Cheers Brian ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ On Mon, Jan 18, 2016, at 09:46 AM, 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://www.fastmail.com - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free -- 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.
