Difference between Sigma D, DC and DG 135-400mm lenses?

[donal_murphy]

Hi,

 

I've decided to get a not very expensive telephoto zoom to use with my D90 and the Sigma 135-400 F4.5-5.6 APO seems to fit the bill.

 

I am trying to decide which version of this lens I want to buy (second-hand). I believe that the "DC" and "DG" versions are for cropped and full frame respectively, but I can't find any info anywhere online about the "D" version, even though there are lots on sale.

 

Could anyone offer any guidance on this?

 

All info' welcome. Thanks.

[ShunCheung]

See this web page: Sigma Lens Abbreviations

 

Sigma DG lenses are FX lenses.

Sigma DC lenses are DX (APS-C) lenses.

[photo_galleries]

D = Distance Information Function. Same as the "D" in a Nikon AF-D lens.

[Andrew Garrard]

Oddly not on that web page, "DG" was, I believe, a range that Sigma introduced with an anti-reflective coating on the rear element: since camera sensors are (or were) more reflective than film, some lenses prior to the "DG" designation showed internal reflections due to light bouncing off the sensor and then off the rear element. I'd kind of expect the rear element of a 135-400mm (I didn't know there was one) to be far enough from the sensor that it shouldn't be a huge issue anyway, so I don't know whether "DG" was more of a marketing gimmick than an important feature for that lens.

 

I could, of course, be completely misremembering that.

[donal_murphy]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the input. I spoke to someone at Skearsphoto who said the "D" was an early version of the "DG". Sounds plausible.

[Andrew Garrard]

Not that I have any reason to doubt the staff in Skears, but I'm always a little wary of things told to me assertively by people in a shop, even if they've got the extensive history that these guys seem to. (I've had even less accurate information from actual company reps, so this isn't much of a criticism.) The world would be improved if more people said "I don't know", or at least "I'm not sure, but I think..." - though they could still be right.

 

Rummaging a bit more, Wikipedia notes that "DG" stands for "digital grade"; "DL" was "deluxe" (for "not very good film lenses"), as distinct from "EX" ("excellent" film lenses), but I'm not sure a 135-400 was ever "DL".

 

There's some history of Sigma lenses here. That suggests a 1996 launch date for a 135-400mm f4.5-5.6 APO RF (oddly included in this catalogue from 1995). The only "D" in it is the "SLD" (super low dispersion) glass, though - similar to Nikon's "ED" (extra-low dispersion) glass, and generally in the "we don't really want to use fluorite" category. The update launched in 2005 has the "DG" "optimized for digital SLR cameras" designation. They're both described as 13 elements in 11 groups, which suggests the only optical changes are the filtering - although it also suggests that the rear element is closer to the sensor than I expected, and "DG" might actually make a difference.

 

There was "DF" (for "dual focusing" - possibly a clutch) used for the 24-70 in 2001. Otherwise, I can't find any reference to "D" on its own in Sigma lens terminology. Rummaging on an obvious auction site, it looks like the Sony and Canon versions of the lens lacks the "D" designation, so I'm inclined to agree with photo_galleries - it's communicating distance information through the F mount, and put on there so the lenses don't look inferior to Nikon's own AF-D lenses (distinct from their AF lenses). "DG" applied to all mounts, so I don't think there's a connection with that, and anything specific to the mount would probably not be optical.

 

I've had this problem before: Sigma don't seem to like putting mount-specific information on their lens documentation. I've struggled in the past to tell which of their F-mount Art lenses are "E aperture", for example (85mm yes, 35mm and 50mm no).

 

I have a vague recollection of there being relatively glowing reviews of the Sigma 120-400mm when it came out, alongside the 150-500mm. The 150-500, despite its reviews, was a blurry mess past, and possibly at, 400mm (which I learned the hard way - f/11 got you something vaguely usable on a D700...) which makes me a little nervous about how good the 120-400mm was, and by extension how good the older 135-400mm was. Not that you're paying 150-600mm Sport money, so I doubt you'll be too distraught if it's a little limited, but I'd say try it before you pay for it; a cheap paperweight is still a paperweight. (And it might be just fine - I worry too much.) Without spending several times as much, I don't have a better suggestion, though.

 

Best of luck with it!

[photo_galleries]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the input. I spoke to someone at Skearsphoto who said the "D" was an early version of the "DG". Sounds plausible.

 

They gave you the wrong info. Like I stated in my reply:

 

Corresponding AF Mounts: D=Distance Information Function for Minolta or Nikon

 

Source: Lenses | Sigma Corporation of America

[Andrew Garrard]

Ooh - thanks, photo_galleries. My google-fu completely failed to find that one - glad I'd already concluded you were probably right, or I'd have more than the usual amount of egg on my beard. :-) With that pointer as a start, it appears the magic table that would allow me to work out whether a lens has an electronic aperture is here (for my future reference).