Lens Comparison

<p>I currently have a Pentax Kino Precision Japan Push-Pull zoom 80-200mm/4 1:4 macro. I am looking at a 70-300 F4-5.6 SIGMA DG MACRO 1:2 AF. I have been told that this is quite soft at the long end (to the extent where an enlargement beyond 8x10 is impossible for a good quality print. How does it measure up? Am I looking at greater, lesser, or equal quality (a 1-10 scale is preferable, where my current lens is a 5 (with explanation if it is something I wouldn't think of ordinarily.)).</p>

<p>Please and Thank you.<br /></p>

<p>Kiron 80-200mm f/4 MACRO 1:4 (/)55 MC</p>

<p>peter,</p>

<p> I don't think this is a fair comparison if you are talking about the full range (up to 300mm). I have the Tamron f4.5-5.6 70-300 LD macro and I feel it is similar to the Sigma lens. But to be honest it did pretty decent even with a 1.4X TC ( I was traveling with a bunch of students to Costa Rica so I was limited in what I could bring. And I have to say for about $160 I was very pleased with the lens. The image I included was hand-held from a boat with the Tamron lens + 1.4X Tamron TC. Considering the conditions it isn't half bad, although it does not match my prime. I would imagine the Sigma would perform similarly.<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10728972-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1004" /></p>

<p>Sorry I know nothing about the Kiron lens. If you have it why don't you do a few test images.</p>

<p>The next question, what is most important to you the longer reach or macro?</p>

<p>What do you mean "Test images?" I have a resolution chart. Is that what you mean? I also have about a thousand pictures using it in the field, from which I could upload 100% crops of the center and edge (or of the resolution chart) of one.</p>

<p>Also, The point is not a fair focal length comparison. It is a quality comparison. The point is that this may well replace my Kiron (on my digital. Only at times on my film) if the IQ at the long end is acceptable and the range covered by my Kiron is of equal (or better) IQ.</p>

<p>I guess what I meant was that the 70-300 is not super sharp on the end, but I think it is pretty good below 200mm.</p>

<p>Define "Super Sharp." What is the maximum print size on a 14.6 MP file without loosing quality due to the lens*?</p>

<p>This assumes a well exposed photo, exposed for less than or on the reciprocal of the focal length, hand-held, at 200 and 300, respectively</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And I have to say for about $160 I was very pleased with the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Doug's perspective is very sane here. Several years ago I needed something real fast in K-mount that had a 300mm reach and all I could find was that Tamron lens. For the money it did the job. But my level of expectation was rather moderate, or in Peter's ranking about a "5".</p>

<p>Perhaps I'm mistaken in lumping the Sigma in the same bucket as the Tamron, but for the money and for the specs they seem real similar, and I assume they have comparable flaws. You are just not going to get heavy duty build quality, nor fast shooting capability with these consumer-type lenses. But, unlike your Kiron, you'll get light weight (this matters to some folks as much as optical quality), AF, and 300mm reach.</p>

<p>I hope someone with experience with both the Kiron and the Sigma bubbles up. And I hope they have a decent sense of visual and technical judgement about each lens' performance. Consider purchasing the Sigma and seeing if it works out for you.</p>

<p>Personally I'm not a big fan of old zoom lenses. I find them too heavy and I don't think the optical engineering on <em>most</em> of them was developed as well as modern zooms are. When I first took on Pentax many moons ago, I had a push/pull Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm that may have been the 3rd generation. It was highly regarded, and rather heavy. When I got back from my trip with the plastic Tamron, I decided to compare images for sharpness and color rendition. I was pleasantly surprised at how much better the Tamron was. I quickly sold the Vivitar.</p>

<p>That all said, maybe you should save your money for a really excellent zoom intended for a cropped sensor DSLR. Both 80-200mm and 70-300mm are more 135-film era focal ranges. They are useful, of course, but the compromises are strong too.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>That, by my understanding, comes out to roughly 105-450/4-5.6. I like that range, and it makes for better edge resolution to throw out the outer third of the image circle (correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think that since IQ decreases towards the edge of the Circle of Confusion, 1/3 less would produce a higher effective Edge Resolution).</p>

<p>Peter, I have the sigma, and I would probably rate the copy I have as a 7. I have taken some very sharp and clean photos with it.. and enlarged to 12x18 in. It is not super crisp at 300mm, but if you make a habit of zooming to only 280 or 260, I have found that you get good results.<br>

Unfortunately I am not at home.. but a couple of examples..</p><div></div>

<p>..</p><div></div>

<p>...</p><div></div>

<p>But the sharpness is a far bigger problem (according to the forum thread on this lens) in the 200-300 range, and that is important to me.</p>

<p>I didn't see the example at 300mm earlier. I start to see pixelation before sharpness is too big of a problem.</p>

<p>Longer reach is more important than macro to me. I have a 55-52mm coupling ring and a 49-52 step up ring for my 28mm, and a 52mm reversal ring for my 50mm. I, however, do like the macro capabilities of this lens. Also, I have a film camera. FF coverage is a must (even though I use my K20D primarily).</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 70-300mm DG APO maco, with which I have been quite satisfied. I lent it to a friend who does bird shots, and he got some really nice ones with it.</p>

<p>I since have also acquired the Pentax 55-300mm, and choose it most of the time for its compactness, greater range, and nice handling. The Sigma's AF might be a little quicker though. </p>

<p>Hi Peter,</p>

<p>I believe I used to have the Kiron you mentioned. It has a zoom lock, right? I thought it was a very good zoom lens for its age, but on digital I found that it produced a lot of purple fringing in high contrast situations (light shining off surfaces).</p>

<p>I never tried the Sigma, but I did try a bunch of other 300mm lenses and I mentioned my experience with them <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/2011/06/comments-on-budget-300mm-lenses-for.html">here</a>. Of those, the Tamron 70-300 is usually brought up in comparisons with the Sigma you are considering. I would say the Tamron will be better than your Kiron within 70-200 and it is still very usable at 300mm. You can check some of the photos I took with it (most at 300mm) <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/tags/tamron70300456/">here</a>. The following shot, for example, is a crop from a 300mm - there is still plenty of detail in it:</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2357/5827189120_1afa27ffa1_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="428" /></p>

<p>The following is an uncropped shot:</p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5188/5807884444_6de7466713_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="429" /></p>

<p>The great thing about the Tamron is that it can be found second hand for less than $100. I think it's a great deal and I like it very much.</p>

<p>IMO, if you want a sharper lens at 300mm, you can try the FA 100-300/4.7-5-8 or the DA 55-300/4-5.8, which will give you slightly better performance, but for a real boost you would need to get a different class of lens - something like the DA* 60-250/4 or the DA* 300/4.</p>

 

<p>1: The FA* 300/2.8 SMC with focus clutch for full manual override is my dream lens, and the /4 is next to best.<br>

2: It has become apparent that my, rather than the lens's photographic ability will definitely be the primary limiting factor, and at this price I cannot afford <em>not</em> to try it. It should definitely last years before I get better than it will let me.<br>

3: My Kiron definitely suffers from extreme purple fringing, but doesn't have the zoom lock you mentioned.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>3: My Kiron definitely suffers from extreme purple fringing, but doesn't have the zoom lock you mentioned.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I remembered now that there are multiple versions of Kiron 80-200 and I now believe mine was a 4.5, not a 4. They are all listed in this <a href="http://bbs.dartmouth.edu/~fangq/blog/index.cgi?action=browse&id=note/photo/3PartyLens">cult lens article</a> - search for the section on Kiron.</p>

<p>I purchased the lens, Bargain Quality on KEH for 53 dollars.</p>