A Surprising Old Sigma

A couple of weeks ago I bought a cheap box of odds and ends on a local auction, mainly to acquire a couple of old exposure meters I was interested in. Included was a Sigma lens, a 70-210mm Multi-Coated Zoom-K f/4-5.6. It rattled when I picked it up and I put it aside and I left it, intending to determine it's fate at some later date. A couple of days ago I picked it up again, observing that it was cosmetically good and optically clean and clear, but that there was a pronounced slackness in the push-pull zooming action, with the slight clunking noise I noticed earlier. I'm not really very capable when it comes to dissembling zoom lenses, so I thought I'd fit an Olympus adapter and try it on a DSLR. Rather surprisingly, the results were very good, and whatever was loose inside didn't appear to have an adverse effect on image quality.

 

Yesterday I took the bit between my teeth, fitted the lens to an OM-4 loaded with Ilford Delta 400 and took it to town. I developed the film in PMK Pyro and the results were actually somewhat better than my expectations, and I'll post a selection below. But first, here's the lens.

 

 

Over the years Sigma produced a whole series of 70-210mm lenses with the same optical formula and and I'm curious to know just where this "K" model fits in. I'm familiar with the hugely popular "UC" series, and the later AF ones with the APO glass, but can't find much on the internet regarding this particular lens. I suspect it's a very early model, and it exhibits the characteristics of early Sigma lenses; pretty good glass and woeful construction. However, I might keep it in the "to be repaired" box, just in case I need a challenge on some rainy Winter's afternoon. Should any member be familiar with the lens or have further knowledge relating to it's heritage, please flesh out this post.

 

@Palliser Estate

 

 

DOF

 

 

Ugly Old, Ugly New

 

 

@Crouching Tiger

 

 

Michelin

 

 

Post

 

 

Entrance

 

 

Spotlit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, whatever is rattling around in there doesn't seem to have hurt the image quality, from what I can tell.

 

When I was first starting to get serious in photography, I remember that the overriding opinion was that most low-end zooms, particularly third party zooms, were mostly junk and better used as paperweights. So, of course, I started buying all primes. But over the years, I've acquired quite a few inexpensive zooms, mostly from third party manufacturers. Some were included in with other equipment, some I purchased intentionally. There have been a few that were not very good, even for my less than exacting standards. However, most have been perfectly adequate for my uses, which is mostly hand-held middle aperture type stuff.

 

That's not to say that cheap zooms are on par with the more expensive stuff. I don't really have any expensive zooms to compare to. Just that I'd probably have been just as happy running around with a couple of zooms as opposed to 3-4 primes in the bag, if not more so due to the ease of use when not having to change lenses as often is factored in.

These mid range tele zooms have been much maligned, probably without actual experience of them. I guess after acquiring an SLR with a 50mm lens, the hobbyist's first purchase would have been a third party telezoom like the Sigma. The second might have been a third party wide angle. These third party lenses would have been much cheaper than their camera manufacturers own counterparts. Many such sets are seen on the auction sites daily.

 

The great thing about zooms was that the picture could be composed to the desired crop in the camera, particularly useful for slide film users when cropping the slide afterwards was not really practicable.

My first "other" lens was a Sigma 135. Which I still have.. and much like Corey.. I don't have anything to compare against. I have noticed, I am not much for longer FL. I will look to see what "type" the Sigma is... is this the same company that made/makes the Foveon sensor?

Thanks for the responses. Yes, there's still a certain disparagement of zoom lenses from the "primes only" aficionados, but I find them invaluable. They're not just for "bringing things closer"; the changes in perspective and DOF available with a lens that encompasses a range of focal length is a handy tool, if one is in a creative mood.

 

chuck_foreman|1 said:

I will look to see what "type" the Sigma is... is this the same company that made/makes the Foveon sensor?

 

Sure is, Chuck. If you're interested is seeing a few examples from this much-debated sensor, there's an interesting thread running over in the Digital Mirrorless Camera forum.

 

Sigma Foveon Images

Edited April 26, 2021 by rick_drawbridge

I'm familiar with that Sigma zoom, Rick. I bought one with Prospec branding for my wife to use on her Canon AL-1. She used that lens until she switched to AF. Over the years I've owned several really good Sigma lenses both MF and AF. My favorite is the 90mm f 2.8 macro with the 24mm f 2.8 mini wide a close second. I like the ultracompact 135mm f 3.5 mini tele as well. I believe, however, that its wide angle performance would be bested somewhat by some of the camera makers lenses of the same aperture. The one manual zoom I have is the 100-200 f 4.5. It has a constant aperture and close focusing. While not compact, it balances well on my Minolta SRT bodies. Among the AF lenses I like the 100-300 f 4.5-6.7 that I have in Pentax AF mount and an 18-35 in Maxxum mount.

Sigma (back in the 70's) offered one of the first "framing zooms"- the 39-80 f 3.5. I have no clue as to how well it performed.

Mike Gammill said :

The one manual zoom I have is the 100-200 f 4.5. It has a constant aperture and close focusing. While not compact, it balances well on my Minolta SRT bodies

 

Yes, I've read reviews of that lens that rate it very highly. I'm keeping an eye open for one to appear on our local auctions.

In my rather more extensive than-I-would-wish experience with Sigma lenses ranging from old pre-stop lenses to modern AF, I've had very good luck. I never hesitate to acquire one if it's one that will be useful and the price is right.

Though the few recent Sigma zooms i have are quite good, i also have an old Sigma f/3.5 14 mm lens, and though it is reasonably sharp, it is almost impossible to use due to extreme flare. Not all are good. So perhaps when talking about old Sigma lenses, the word "surprising" would perhaps not be out of place when finding one that is good.

My limited experience with Sigma lenses has been good--an 18-50 f/2.8, 17-50 f/2.8 and 70 mm macro f/2.8 have all been good both optically and mechanically. These are all from the digital era; I can't speak for lenses from the 1980's and 1990's. I only wish that they still made lenses for the Pentax K mount since I think that they have stopped production for that mount.

Very nice results. Haven't used any Sigma lenses myself, though I have been curious to try the Jenazoom and Prakticar zooms which I believe they made. Any unfavorable remarks I've heard about Sigma lenses have generally been regarding some of their early 1960s lenses, though as I've learned, actual user experience often varies from "expert" opinion. :) Used Sigma lenses seem quite reasonably priced too. Edited April 27, 2021 by m42dave

Since I mentioned the Sigma 100-200 f 4.5 I thought I'd post a photo comparing its size to other zooms of same range.

Left to right: Maxxum 100-200 f 4.5, Sigma 100-200 f 4.5, and Minolta (Celtic)100-200 f 5.6

I actually started a thread about that lens back in 2012. I didn't realize I'd owned this lens for so long.

m42dave said :

Very nice results. Haven't used any Sigma lenses myself, though I have been curious to try the Jenazoom and Prakticar zooms which I believe they made.

 

Thanks, Dave. I have the two Sigma-made (?) Prakticar zooms and I'd rate them as excellent, and I have a 75-300 Jenazoom that's desperately in need of a clean but still a classy lens. There's quite a lot of information regarding the mysterious Jenazooms here, but it seems to be generally accepted that Sigma was the manufacturer.

 

The Mysterious Jenazooms

Mike Gammill said :

Since I mentioned the Sigma 100-200 f 4.5 I thought I'd post a photo comparing its size to other zooms of same range.

 

That's certainly a tiny lens, Mike. Internet sources give it minimum length of 94.5mm, the same length as the two smallest zoom lenses I have, the Sigma UC 70-210mm f/4-5.6 and it's twin, the Prakticar 70-210mm f/4-5.6

Looks as if you might have found the only decent lens Sigma made in the 20th century!

 

All my experiences with Sigma lenses from around that time have been bad ones. And I don't want to even think about touching their now sticky 'Zen' finish lenses. I blame them entirely for making those non-durable rubberised coatings popular.

I remember in the 70s when Sigma had a whole range of lenses with a kind of silver finish, and most of them were APO-this and APO-that, which, of course, they almost certainly were not, and definitely not at the prices they were charging. Of course, now they sell really excellent lenses.