>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:42:19 -0500
>From: Scott Nelson <SNelson@xxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] New to list
>
>Well, some say Sigma is short for *Significant Malfunction* I'd say, Sigma
seems
>to have improved, and has an intriguing 14mm fish for AF cameras. The very
short
>FL is where Sigma seems to be concentrating today. But, during the period
when
>Sigma was making OM mount lenses, their quality wasn't very good. On the
other
>hand, any Sigma OM mount lens that has survived 'till now was probably one
of
>the "good ones."
I have a 28mm/f1.8 Series II Sigma lens with the aspherical element(s). I
bought it just before Sigma stopped making exotic glass in OM mount. I think
it's a very good lens, but I have not tested it in any consistent way. It
has 1/2 click stops, depth of field scale, and an IR mark in addition to the
nice hood. It is some kind of polycarbonate material, but is still somewhat
hefty due to all that glass. Takes 58mm filters. The diaphram has 7 blades.
I paid about 180$ for it I think.
I also have a Sigma 18mm/f2.8 lens, which is older. This one also has 1/2
stop clicks, an IR mark and depth of field scale. Takes 77mm filters. The
diaphram occasionally hangs on small f stops (f16 or f22, like you really
need f22 on an 18mm lens!). I've taken it apart a couple of times, and
cleaned some of the internal glass elements, since they had some "grease
vapor" or something on them. I also have not tested this lens, but I've used
it many times. It's one of my favorite lenses. I doubt that it measures well
against a Zuiko though. The lens is about 20 years old I guess. It has
internal filters also, which is nice I suppose. I paid 200$ for it, which
was maybe too much.
Both of these are much larger than the slower Zuiko lenses.
Be seeing you.
Dirk Wright
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|