Interesting stuff, thanks. Hard to evaluate - and a perfect example of how not to make web pages. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: jerome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 26. toukokuuta 2003 19:22 Aihe: Re: Vs: Sigma 105/2.8 EX Macro (bokeh examples) >Quoting Raimo Korhonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Is there anything concrete to support the assumption that >> the 200 mm Pentax macro is sharper that - for example - >> the 2.8/105 Sigma macro. > >Okay... so I should not have said "sharper", particularly since I certainly >don't question the sharpness of ths Sigma lens. It is an *excellent* performer >in that respect, no doubt. In fact, I'd be hesitant to use it for portraits for >that reason. However, WRT macro stuff, the extra working room of the 200mm >would be helpful, not to mention the trap focus ability of a (true) manual lens >on a pentax body. > >As for your request for "anything concrete", if test scores are what you want, >there's a compilation of test scores here: >http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~loui/lenses > >You have to do a ton of scrolling (or searching) but it shows both lenses to be >ranked as "(2) excellent", which the average score of the Sigma being slightly >higher, actually. But they are in two different categories (rightfully so I >guess, as Bob discussed in another email). According to these two sites, > >http://home.att.net/~alnem/html/pentax_primes.html >http://www.concentric.net/~smhalpin/LongComments.html#300%20mm%20f/4.5%20F*% >20ED%20(IF) > >"It was recently tested in a German photo magazine and was found better than >all the competition . . including the new Canon 180/3.5 macro and Nikon 200/4. " > >So if that quantifies anything for you (?), then there you go. But for me, I >don't tend to put much merit into such test. Looking at photos I've (or someone >else has) taken tends to be more telling for my purposes. Nonetheless, hope >that helps. > >
