What starter lens on Sigma SD14

Planning on getting a Sigma SD14 I have to look into the 'what lens to get for a starter' question. I suppose my question is somewhat answered here and there on the forum but usually one refers to Sigma lens reviews that are tested on Nikon or Canon body's. Usually the test states quite clearly that you can't expect the same results on a different camera. For instance on a Canon body, the Sigma 17-70 is preferred above the 18-50, but on a Nikon this is not the case (if I read the tests correctly).

I'm thinking about the choice between three lenses for a basis

the 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO (and live with the crop factor as this will resemble a 40-119 lens on the SD14)

the 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO (fast lens and seen some remarkable shots on Pbase)

the 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO (a bit more zoom, a bit less fast)

I'm planning on getting a telezoom later on.

Q: what would you, as a SD14 user, recommend as a basic lens?
Q: anyone knows of lens tests actually done on the SD14?

To be honest, I'm not such a technical pixel eye guy so if I lookup these lenses in PBase all three of them seem to produce fine pics to my eyes ;-) In other words, I really don't know what to look for exactly to determine the quality of the lens.

--
===================================
Maurice Foulon
Groningen, The Netherlands.

Teacher in Human Technology
Professional artist
Counselor in psychosynthesis
===================================

look at photozone for lens tests.

I have only experience with the 24-70 and the 18-50. The 24-70 isnt wide enough for me and it was quite sharp but not as sharp as the 18-50. WIth my 24-70, 2.8 was simply too soft.

On the 18-50, 2.8 is alright at the wide end and very good at the long end. The extra length of the 17-70 is nice but the lens isnt much cheaper than the 18-50 so I would go for the extra speed rather than length.

O.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollivr/
http://www.flickrleech.net/user/ollivr

Maurice Foulon said:

Usually the test states quite clearly that you can't expect the
same results on a different camera.

Click to expand...

If you are talking about the photozone.de, they say that you cannot compare lens A on Camera N to lens B on camera C by directly comparing the numbers. The sensor and processing are different as well, so a score of 1900 may be excellent on one camera but only very good on another. There is also sample to sample variation to consider as well.

Maurice Foulon said:

For instance on a Canon body,
the Sigma 17-70 is preferred above the 18-50, but on a Nikon this
is not the case (if I read the tests correctly).

Click to expand...

If you are talking about the photozone.de, then the 18-50 tested on Canon (Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Aspherical IF) and the one tested on Nikon (Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 DC EX macro) are different lenses. The lens tested on the Nikon is the latest version:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0407/04072001sigma1850dc.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093012sigma18-50dc.asp

The new 18-50 DC macro is considered to be an excellent lens.

--
Erik

Maurice Foulon said:

Planning on getting a Sigma SD14 I have to look into the 'what lens
to get for a starter' question. I suppose my question is somewhat
answered here and there on the forum but usually one refers to
Sigma lens reviews that are tested on Nikon or Canon body's.
Usually the test states quite clearly that you can't expect the
same results on a different camera. For instance on a Canon body,
the Sigma 17-70 is preferred above the 18-50, but on a Nikon this
is not the case (if I read the tests correctly).

Click to expand...

Here is a link to some comparison of most of the Sigma lenses , taken with the SD10..
http://www.maros-photo.com/sample-photos/lens_test.html

Maurice Foulon said:

I'm thinking about the choice between three lenses for a basis

the 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO (and live with the crop factor as this
will resemble a 40-119 lens on the SD14)

the 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO (fast lens and seen some remarkable
shots on Pbase)

the 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO (a bit more zoom, a bit less fast)

I'm planning on getting a telezoom later on.

Q: what would you, as a SD14 user, recommend as a basic lens?
Q: anyone knows of lens tests actually done on the SD14?

To be honest, I'm not such a technical pixel eye guy so if I lookup
these lenses in PBase all three of them seem to produce fine pics
to my eyes ;-) In other words, I really don't know what to look for
exactly to determine the quality of the lens.

Click to expand...

I think you could be happy with any of the three lenses

I have just received a 17-70 with my new SD14 ... but still too early to make any statements about it

Maurice Foulon said:

--
===================================
Maurice Foulon
Groningen, The Netherlands.

Teacher in Human Technology
Professional artist
Counselor in psychosynthesis
===================================

Click to expand...

--
Please visit my galleries at
http://www.pbase.com/yoicz/galleries

Maurice Foulon said:

snip >
Q: what would you, as a SD14 user, recommend as a basic lens?

Click to expand...

The 17-70mm is my standard lens for my SD14 (and when I had my SD10). Works very well for travel as it is smaller and lighter than the 24-70mm EX. Sharpness and color are excellent.

Maurice Foulon said:

Q: anyone knows of lens tests actually done on the SD14?

To be honest, I'm not such a technical pixel eye guy so if I lookup
these lenses in PBase all three of them seem to produce fine pics
to my eyes ;-) In other words, I really don't know what to look for
exactly to determine the quality of the lens.

--
===================================
Maurice Foulon
Groningen, The Netherlands.

Teacher in Human Technology
Professional artist
Counselor in psychosynthesis
===================================

Click to expand...

--
John P. Sabo

'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'

• Arthur C. Clarke -

Maurice,

Not the 24-70---especially if it has the "push/pull/switch" for changing from AF to manual focus. It's a good lens for portraits, but I don't care as much for it for general use.

From those two, if the prices are similar, I'd probably go for the 18-50 for the speed. I think it's nearly a toss-up, so if you need the extra length, don't be afraid of the 17-70.

--
Jim

Maurice Foulon said:

Planning on getting a Sigma SD14 I have to look into the 'what lens
to get for a starter' question. I suppose my question is somewhat
answered here and there on the forum but usually one refers to
Sigma lens reviews that are tested on Nikon or Canon body's.
Usually the test states quite clearly that you can't expect the
same results on a different camera. For instance on a Canon body,
the Sigma 17-70 is preferred above the 18-50, but on a Nikon this
is not the case (if I read the tests correctly).

I'm thinking about the choice between three lenses for a basis

the 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO (and live with the crop factor as this
will resemble a 40-119 lens on the SD14)

the 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO (fast lens and seen some remarkable
shots on Pbase)

the 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO (a bit more zoom, a bit less fast)

I'm planning on getting a telezoom later on.

Q: what would you, as a SD14 user, recommend as a basic lens?
Q: anyone knows of lens tests actually done on the SD14?

To be honest, I'm not such a technical pixel eye guy so if I lookup
these lenses in PBase all three of them seem to produce fine pics
to my eyes ;-) In other words, I really don't know what to look for
exactly to determine the quality of the lens.

Click to expand...

If you dont mind using manual focus/manual stop-down lenses then you need'nt use any Sigma lenses on the SD14 at all!...You can get better performance for a fraction of the cost by using high quality non-Sigma lenses.

But if you cant get along without AF, then you will have to severely limit your choice of lenses to Sigma or converted Canon EF lenses.
--
DSG
--



--
http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/

Quite some clear answers guys, thnx.

A reason I found in the forum to go for the 17-70 was if I wanted to work with IR. I plan to, as well as pinhole photography, but the latter don't need a lens at all ;-)

Actually, I plan to get at least one 'modern' lens to go with my camera, but I don't mind to work manual at all. I'm not used otherwise as my former teacher on art school forbid us to get anything beyond a semi automatic camera and work only from manual settings. I never stopped doing it - my old camera's (a Minolta and a Mamiya 645) don't offer me the possibility except for measuring the light available.

I found a list with M45 lenses in the forums like:
Pelang 8mm f3.5 fish-eye
Zenitar 16mm f2.8 fish-eye
Tokina 17mm f3.5 TL
Carl Zeiss 28mm f2.8 Distagton T*
Nikon E-Series 50mm f1.8 AIS
Nikon Micro-Nikkor 55mm f2.8 AIS Macro
Canon 55mm f1.2 FL
Mamiya 645 80mm f2.8 N
Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5
Carl Zeiss 85mm f1.4 Planar T*
Tamron Adaptall II 90mm f2.5 Macro
Mamiya M645 150mm f3.5 N
Tamron 90mm f2.5+matched SP BBAR 2x teleconverter (180mm f5.6)
Carl Zeiss Jena 180mm f2.8 Sonnar
Carl Zeiss Jena 300mm f4.0 Sonnar
Taylor-Hobson 12" (305mm) f4

I've not yet looked into this as I found it this morning so I don't know if there are any M42 lenses in this pack. Anything you can recommend for the Sigma SD14?

--
===================================
Maurice Foulon
Groningen, The Netherlands.

Teacher in Human Technology
Professional artist
Counselor in psychosynthesis
===================================

.. the 17-70 mm is a good choice. The extra reach at the tele-end t.o.v. the 18-50 is a benefit. The 18-50 is also very good, a little bit sharper, but the tele of 50 mm is in some cases too short.
So, as a walk aroud lens: 17-70 mm; for utmost sharpness : 18-50 mm

Maurice Foulon said:

Quite some clear answers guys, thnx.
A reason I found in the forum to go for the 17-70 was if I wanted
to work with IR. I plan to, as well as pinhole photography, but the
latter don't need a lens at all ;-)

Actually, I plan to get at least one 'modern' lens to go with my
camera, but I don't mind to work manual at all. I'm not used
otherwise as my former teacher on art school forbid us to get
anything beyond a semi automatic camera and work only from manual
settings. I never stopped doing it - my old camera's (a Minolta and
a Mamiya 645) don't offer me the possibility except for measuring
the light available.

I found a list with M45 lenses in the forums like:
Pelang 8mm f3.5 fish-eye
Zenitar 16mm f2.8 fish-eye
Tokina 17mm f3.5 TL
Carl Zeiss 28mm f2.8 Distagton T*
Nikon E-Series 50mm f1.8 AIS
Nikon Micro-Nikkor 55mm f2.8 AIS Macro
Canon 55mm f1.2 FL
Mamiya 645 80mm f2.8 N
Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5
Carl Zeiss 85mm f1.4 Planar T*
Tamron Adaptall II 90mm f2.5 Macro
Mamiya M645 150mm f3.5 N
Tamron 90mm f2.5+matched SP BBAR 2x teleconverter (180mm f5.6)
Carl Zeiss Jena 180mm f2.8 Sonnar
Carl Zeiss Jena 300mm f4.0 Sonnar
Taylor-Hobson 12" (305mm) f4

I've not yet looked into this as I found it this morning so I don't
know if there are any M42 lenses in this pack.

Click to expand...

Yes, the following lenses on my list that have M42 mounts are:
Pelang 8mm f3.5 fish-eye
Zenitar 16mm f2.8 fish-eye
Tokina 17mm f3.5 TL
Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5
Tamron Adaptall II 90mm f2.5 Macro (via an M42 adaptall II adapter)
Carl Zeiss Jena 180mm f2.8 Sonnar
Carl Zeiss Jena 300mm f4.0 Sonnar
Taylor-Hobson 12" (305mm) f4
And another good-un that should be on the list:
Enna Tele-Ennalyt 400mm f4.5

...The rest are either Nikon, Mamiya 645, PK, P6, and Sigma mounts, either via an adapter or by converting the lensmount on the lens.

Maurice Foulon said:

Anything you can recommend for the Sigma SD14?

Click to expand...

Yes, everything except the Nikon mount ones because while you can still use Nikon lenses on the SD14 via a Roxsen Nikon-M42 adapter+ an M42-SA adapter, you cant get infinty focus with this combo so they could only be used for close-ups and macros.

However it is possibile to convert certain Nikon lenses to SA mount (and even M42 mount, as there is just enough difference in the registration distance to allow it)
--
DSG
--



--
http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/

Well, the remark about non sigma lenses triggered me to search for 'great lens m42' in Google and I found a small thread on another site where the following statement was put:

Philippe Gauthierprolific poster, Nov 27, 2003; 11:07 a.m.

As the others said, you cannot go wrong with the Takumars SMC, Fujinon and Mamiya-Sekor lenses. Most Carl Zeiss Jena are well regarded, but the exception seems to be the 50/2.8 Tessar, often considered to be inferior to most other normal lenses.

Among the Takumars, the sharpest I've used is the 35/3.5 - the 35/2.0 is heavier but not so good, unless you need the extra stop. The 55/1.8 is sharper than the 50/1.4 in its ordinary, non SMC version; the SMC version is said to be superior glass, but I haven't tested it.

The Takumar 200/4.0 is available everywhere for not much money; it's a bit slow, but a good performer. I'm using this focal lenght more and more.

--
===================================
Maurice Foulon
Groningen, The Netherlands.

Teacher in Human Technology
Professional artist
Counselor in psychosynthesis
===================================

Maurice Foulon said:

Well, the remark about non sigma lenses triggered me to search for
'great lens m42' in Google and I found a small thread on another
site where the following statement was put:

Philippe Gauthierprolific poster, Nov 27, 2003; 11:07 a.m.

As the others said, you cannot go wrong with the Takumars SMC,
Fujinon and Mamiya-Sekor lenses. Most Carl Zeiss Jena are well
regarded, but the exception seems to be the 50/2.8 Tessar, often
considered to be inferior to most other normal lenses.

Among the Takumars, the sharpest I've used is the 35/3.5 - the
35/2.0 is heavier but not so good, unless you need the extra stop.
The 55/1.8 is sharper than the 50/1.4 in its ordinary, non SMC
version; the SMC version is said to be superior glass, but I
haven't tested it.

The Takumar 200/4.0 is available everywhere for not much money;
it's a bit slow, but a good performer. I'm using this focal lenght
more and more.

Click to expand...

The problem with the Takumars is that most, if not all of them, use glass elements which contain radioactive Thorium, apparently to improve the optical properties of the glass.

The Thorium gives off alpha particles, which only have a range of a few cm in air but of course close handling of such lenses as you do when holding and focussing them could be seen as a radiation hazzard.

The other problem with them is that the Thorium turns the glass noticably yellow over time, giving a horrid yellow cast/tint to any pictures taken with them.

The only cure for this yellowing is to expose the effected lenses to strong UV radiation continuously for several weeks...A process that has to be repeated when the yellowing inevitably returns over time.

And a third problem with some of the Takumars is the design of the focus mechanism...On some of them, the rear element protrudes further and further backwards beyond the rear of the lens as the focussing dial is turned towards infinty.

When used on a Sigma DSLR, this can result in the rear element of these Takumars hitting the dust protector before infity is reached and when the unwitting user inevitably attempts to force the focus dial towards infinty when the rear element is already against the dust protector this can cause the glass in the protector to break and has done in a few cases.
The early 8 element Super-Tak 50mm f1.4 is one such lens.
I avoid them like the plague!

I would forget about buying any 200mm M42 lenses as the vast majority simply cannot match the sharpness, contrast and bokeh of the Carl Zeiss Jena 180mm f2.8 Sonnar...The latter being even more useful because its actually a P6 medium format lens. (It fits to the SA mount via a P6-M42 adapter, which is often supplied with the lens, + an M42-SA adapter. )
--
DSG
--



--
http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/

I am very pleased with the 17-70 mm on my SD14, for both general and macro photos.
--
gary h
http://www.pbase.com/gmhyde1/

I bought the Zenitar 16mm f2.8 fish-eye new. I fit it with the JTAT M-42 adapter on the SD14, and it does not focus at infinity, which I find pretty annoying and very disappointing, effectively making it useless for me. I do not know if this is due to the thickness of the adapter.

I would recommend that you try it on the camera with a M-42 adapter before you buy.

Richard

WOHOOOO good to know about the radiation and the yellowness !

--
===================================
Maurice Foulon
Groningen, The Netherlands.

Teacher in Human Technology
Professional artist
Counselor in psychosynthesis
===================================