Photoclubalpha

Yet another one...
I have put a small roll of pictures online, taken with this lens in front of the α900:

http://www.stil-pictures.com/Photograph ... 2324_WRhjc

Same disclaimer as usual, there´s a rudimentary protection on them, but X3Large should give you a free impression good enough for evaluation purposes. It´s now discontinued btw.

While selecting them, I said to myself I should put it back to work a bit more often. It doesn´t happen that much anymore, I know exactly why: that´s due to the 12-24, which is not nearly as heavy. Sigma´s own websites are wrong on this: it´s 483g without caps, 549 with... Not sure whether I´ve an old or a newer design, or whether the α-mount model has always been different. Anybody knows? Mine looks like this one:
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps- ... _4556_sony

Always loved this lens!

Hi Jasper,

Incredible places and I think you got the colours beautifully. The cavern is especially wonderful and I think you did a good job of shooting under droplets of rain. These photos are a testimant that the lens is good.

Thanks for sharing. It's a fresh breeze to glide through your photos.


Yildiz

When I tested the original 20-40mm on film, it had very strong vignetting, so I have not tried on the 900. There seems to be a fairly sharply defined CA, of the type which can be corrected in raw conversion. It's worth considering as an alternative to a 16-35mm f/2.8. Your images certainly don't show any of the vignetting I experienced with Velvia.

David

Hi David,

Do you mean you got that vignetting at all apertures, not just wide open? I never checked mine on my Dynaxes - still could, they never give up! - as I bought it for the A100 in 2006. Almost at the end of its life, it was discontinued shortly after (end 2007 I think). The A900´s sensor is really 24x35.9, would you think that the missing 0.1mm is just enough to get rid of it? Amazing in any case... Although, I have read a few comments here and there, stating you needed to be lucky with this lens. Obviously I was, IQ wise that is...

Cheers,

Jasper

Gradual but strong vignetting all the way to f/8. The same applied to the 20mm f/1.8, 24mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/1.8 Sigma lenses - you had to stop down to at least f/8 to remove the shading (it is not a mechanical cut off like the 16-80mm CZ at 16mm, but a gradual shading to a loss over two stops in the corner).

I do not have a test of the 20-40mm, it was tested before we did the 15-30mm, 20mm f/1.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 which I do have a test of showing similar vignetting (can send you a PDF if interested).

David

Wonderful set, once again.

I thought you might like a virtual travel again when I selected the few shots.

David, I trust you on your words, am not interested in these lenses anymore, although I must confess the 20/f1.8 had my attention at some point. Other reviews stated exactly what you say, and I couldn´t find a shop within my reach having it in stock so I could check myself. Have shifted priorities now, I´m happy with my set up to 70mm, so I´m now looking at the longer end and more magnification with macro. This year will see the 70400G as replacement for my antique but trustworthy Sigma 70-300 Apo Macro - I more or less suspect it´s already in the house, as it´s overdue now - then I have a very short wishlist which will keep me busy saving some money well up to Xmas 2015! It´s allowed to keep dreaming eh?

Cheers,

Jasper

I have got a EX DG version last year, and the result, I have discover that the lens is very not good performer outside the center of the lens.

For APS-C user, the lens is probably good, but very not to my taste on the A900. I tried the lens last time for a corporate picture, where I had to be on the top of a stair to get about 150 persons. Even at 35mm F/8.0 ISO 400 focus subject at about 25 feet and and the detail is not there after 2/3 of the center. Probably for other usage the lens it is ok, but for detail demand picture, Prime lens is better of probably the 24-70 or 28-70G. I was expecting better on my side for F/8.0 on a lens that is only covering 2x zoom (20-40mm).

At F/2.8, the lens was very not good. At F/4.0 It was starting to be ok, but again, disappointing for a lens of this type. My dream at this time was to get the perfect match for a Wide angle Zoom for low light concert photography, for the moment only the prime lenses are able to support this need.

Regards,

Frank

I think I was lucky with this lens, for me it´s perfect for landscape indeed but I cannot imagine any other use.
Are you saying not even the 16-35 CZ is doing the job for you?
What wide primes do you use instead?

Jasper_D wrote:I think I was lucky with this lens, for me it´s perfect for landscape indeed but I cannot imagine any other use.
Are you saying not even the 16-35 CZ is doing the job for you?
What wide primes do you use instead?

I have not tried the Zeiss Zoom yet. I'm using the 20mm F/2.8 and 28mm F/2.0 (with some stitching session) for the moment. The Tamron 14mm F2.8 was there too on some shooting.

The 16mm 2.8 Fish eye is there since few weeks now, but I haven't had time to explore enough the possibilities.

Regards,

Frank

InTheSky wrote:I have not tried the Zeiss Zoom yet.

Do it. Do it now. Your regrets will = Zero.

Does the alpha mount version of this lens have an HSM motor in lens?

I´m afraid not, Mark.