Group: Member
Post: 214 (23 liked)
Join date: October 2016
Status:
|
|
on Nov 2, 2016 14:37:24 GMT
Posted: Nov 2, 2016 14:37:24 GMT
 SIGMA ZOOM-II 1:3,5-4,2 f=21-35mm SIGMA ZOOM-II 1:3,5-4,2 f=21-35mm SIGMA ZOOM-II 1:3,5-4,2 f=21-35mm SIGMA ZOOM-II 1:3,5-4,2 f=21-35mmBecause I DO want wide angle but do NOT want to spent my time and money on Ebay trying to grab a 24 and 21 Yashica, I bought a Sigma zoom, which got reasonable praise in the past. There is also a 18-to 35 Sigma available, but although 18 is desirable, I guess 21 - 35 is easier to produce and might result in better image quality... Hope I'm not mistaken... Also this lens lets in a little more light and the variable opening is within a stop.... For now, I just settle for this wide angle solution... Everything from 21 to 210 is now covered. Tiime to get the film out and shoot :-) Which will lead to reinstalling the Autolab 1000, I presume :-) |
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,010 (77 liked)
Join date: January 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 4, 2016 2:49:46 GMT
Posted: Nov 4, 2016 2:49:46 GMT
I used to have an 18mm lens that had no contrast, but was good at doing interiors. Can't remember what brand it was, but I gave it to a friend of mine, and he's been happy with it. Then I got the Phoenix/Samyang 18-28mm from another friend, but it was full of fungus, so I never used it. They do garner some attention whenever one comes up for auction.
PF
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 214 (23 liked)
Join date: October 2016
Status:
|
|
on Nov 4, 2016 15:34:05 GMT
Posted: Nov 4, 2016 15:34:05 GMT
It's INnnnnnnn :-) :-) SIGMA ZOOM-II 1:3,5-4,2 f=21-35mm  SIGMA ZOOM-II 1:3,5-4,2 f=21-35mm SIGMA ZOOM-II 1:3,5-4,2 f=21-35mm SIGMA ZOOM-II 1:3,5-4,2 f=21-35mm SIGMA ZOOM-II 1:3,5-4,2 f=21-35mm SIGMA ZOOM-II 1:3,5-4,2 f=21-35mmAnd in GREAT shape... I mean, like NEW :-) Whoohooooo :-) Of course it has to proof it's quality, but this lens feels like new to me. All metal construction. Even the petalshaped hood is metal. It's not ment for architecture, but I'm gonna use it for candid and streetphotography. A little unscharpness in corners will not be a problem, as is some barrel distortion... The aperture ring does click in at f4. So I can treat it somewhat as an f4 constant aperture zoom... |
|
Group: Member
Post: 214 (23 liked)
Join date: October 2016
Status:
|
|
on Nov 4, 2016 23:53:20 GMT
Posted: Nov 4, 2016 23:53:20 GMT
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 214 (23 liked)
Join date: October 2016
Status:
|
|
on Nov 5, 2016 0:28:47 GMT
Posted: Nov 5, 2016 0:28:47 GMT
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Nov 5, 2016 13:41:11 GMT
Last Edit: Nov 6, 2016 14:16:38 GMT by xkaes
I've had this lens for at least 30 years and love it. There was a later version that is a two touch zoom -- so it lacks the DOF scale -- I think it was f3.5-4.5.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 214 (23 liked)
Join date: October 2016
Status:
|
|
on Nov 5, 2016 17:33:50 GMT
Posted: Nov 5, 2016 17:33:50 GMT
I've had this lens for at least 20 years and love it. There was a later version that is a two touch zoom -- I think it was f/3.5-4.5. Cool :-) I did have a feeling that I will hold on to it also. |
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Nov 6, 2016 22:50:26 GMT
Posted: Nov 6, 2016 22:50:26 GMT
Good evening, i do have the same lens, exactly the Mk. II version of this - because Mk. I was with a non-detachable lens hood. Don't ask me about Image Quality, i must admit, i've bought it ages ago - and never used it...it's floating around somewhere with other lenses...
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 214 (23 liked)
Join date: October 2016
Status:
|
|
on Nov 6, 2016 23:47:22 GMT
Posted: Nov 6, 2016 23:47:22 GMT
What I understand is that this lens is quite sharp. We'll see.
I think it's a sexy lens hahaaa.. It sure feels nice and the big front end is impressive too :-)
My copy is like new. I'm happy with it..
( And I thought that my lens-buying-fever was over..... haha.... not... Just bought a 135 ML today and received the 135 DSB version as a bonus for the same price (so for free )... from this seller. )
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,010 (77 liked)
Join date: January 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 7, 2016 2:45:12 GMT
Posted: Nov 7, 2016 2:45:12 GMT
I forgot I had recently gotten a Tamron 19-35mm AF in Nikon mount. Haven't had the chance to use it yet though.
PF
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Nov 7, 2016 17:29:14 GMT
Posted: Nov 7, 2016 17:29:14 GMT
I got mine at a camera store for what I consider a steal. I think it was $50. No case, shade or anything. But it was in perfect shape. I think at the time, new ones were going for $300. Mine does not have fixed lens shade. I was unaware that they made one that way, but I'm not surprised. So it appears that several versions exist. That is not surprising either. I can attest to the sharpness of the results, but as with any lens you get the best results stopped down a couple of f-stops.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 214 (23 liked)
Join date: October 2016
Status:
|
|
on Nov 8, 2016 0:19:36 GMT
Posted: Nov 8, 2016 0:19:36 GMT
for what I consider a steal. I think it was $50. OOPS.... :-) :-) Mine was even cheaper. So I was and am really lucky... And I love to hear this lens has plenty of sharpness of course. We'll see.... |
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Nov 14, 2016 23:00:45 GMT
Last Edit: Nov 14, 2016 23:02:32 GMT by xkaes
I happened to be looking at the Popular Photography Buyer's Guide from 1985 today for a completely unrelated reason and noticed something that I think is unusual regarding the Sigma 21-35mm zoom lens. I have no idea when mine was made -- before or after 1985 -- but PP lists a Sigma 21-35mm f3.5 in 1985. What is unusual is that it does NOT list it as a variable aperture lens, while it lists several other Sigma zooms as having a variable aperture. Mine is a 3.5/4.2 and, as I recall, there was a version with a f3.5/4.5 aperture. My first thought was "it's a typo" which is pretty common, but they also list it as having a 67mm filter thread. Mine is a 77mm. The filter thread is less likely to be listed incorrectly. So I assume it is definitely a different version. It makes no mention of it being a one-touch or two-touch lens. But a one-touch constant aperture 21-35mm f3.5 zoom lens would be NICE!!! Anyone have any info?
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,038 (562 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Nov 15, 2016 0:05:54 GMT
Posted: Nov 15, 2016 0:05:54 GMT
Hi xkaes,
It's quite confusing with this Sigma lens. First produced in 1979 in a two touch f3.5-4 version it was changed in 1985 to the f3.5-4.2 type. Sigma also announced (to the trade) a revised one-touch version in 1985/6 to accommodate AF - the MF version was changed later and then followed the AF's revised optical formula. The original version had a 67mm filter thread AND a separate 72mm hood thread (clever).
So, there are 3 variants in manual focus - the original f3.5-4 (67mm filter thread), the early (1985) MF f3.5-4.2 (77mm) and the final f3.5-4.2 introduced in late 1986 (77mm). As far as I know, a fixed aperture version was never made; the size and cost of such a lens would have been prohibitive for Sigma's core market.
There's a useful reference list at: www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/sigmalounge/sigma-history-1961-to-present-day/ though it's not perfect as I know there's an 1991/92 MkII AF version which won the European lens of the Year Award and I couldn't spot it in the listing. |
|
Group: Member
Post: 214 (23 liked)
Join date: October 2016
Status:
|
|
on Nov 15, 2016 1:20:58 GMT
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2016 1:21:43 GMT by tts
You DO however, have to open up the aperture half a stop when zooming in from 21 to 35mm. That's rather unusual, but neccesary on this lens. On the bottom is a guide printed... ( Turn you camera/lens combo upside down. )
|
|
