C
Craig24
Justin, thanks for clarification
regards craig
regards craig
CI Photocommunity
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
>Here are the specs for the SIGMA APO ZOOM 50-200mm f3.5-4.5.
Lens Construction: 15 elements in 11 groups Minimum Aperture: f22 at 50mm setting (f32 at 200mm) Minimum Focusing: 1.8m (0.64m at macro) Maximum Magnification: 1:7.8 (1:2 at macro) Filter 62mm Weight 823g Lens Coating: SIGMA multi-layer Lens Hood: Built-in Retractable
A screw-on Achromatic Macro Lens is included. Zooming is done by push-pull, and there is a screw cl& to hold the ring tight when shooting. I haven't seen this feature on any other zoom. It's quite useful.
Regards
Lens Construction: 15 elements in 11 groups Minimum Aperture: f22 at 50mm setting (f32 at 200mm) Minimum Focusing: 1.8m (0.64m at macro) Maximum Magnification: 1:7.8 (1:2 at macro) Filter 62mm Weight 823g Lens Coating: SIGMA multi-layer Lens Hood: Built-in Retractable
A screw-on Achromatic Macro Lens is included. Zooming is done by push-pull, and there is a screw cl& to hold the ring tight when shooting. I haven't seen this feature on any other zoom. It's quite useful.
Regards
Justin is correct about the f/3.5 lens, but the f/4 lens is made by Kyocera. He is correct that it's a Leica design
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this is true it should open a real can of worms among the "magic glass" folks.
Kyocera is the parent company of Yahsica / Contax !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this is true it should open a real can of worms among the "magic glass" folks.
Kyocera is the parent company of Yahsica / Contax !
>I mentioned that I was told (by the retailer who sold me the SIGMA lens >second-hand) that Leitz 'stopped' the manufacture. This could only have >been because the Leica mount is patentable. If this is so, how do Kyocera, >Tamron or anyone else use it? Or do they, like Angenieux used to, have a >licence? Incidentally, I heard that Angenieux stopped making lenses for >the Leica mount because they found Leitz's specs (which they presumably >had to follow) too demanding to be commercial for them.
I wonder.
Regards
I wonder.
Regards
H
hektor
Apologies about the manufacture of the f/3.5.
Francis, the 1:4/80-200 is in current production.
Francis, the 1:4/80-200 is in current production.
H
hektor
Dear Photo Phreak,
No one seems to have complained about these two lenses being made by Kyocera. I have both, and as Douglas has said, they are outstanding lenses. The 80-200 is heavier than the 70-210 it replaced, however I use it (the former) mostly with the Tripod-Holder-R from the 100/2.8 APO.
I imagine the 'collectors' will not be interested in these lenses and they will depreciate in monetary value which means they will become bargains for people to take pictures.
Best wishes,
Justin
No one seems to have complained about these two lenses being made by Kyocera. I have both, and as Douglas has said, they are outstanding lenses. The 80-200 is heavier than the 70-210 it replaced, however I use it (the former) mostly with the Tripod-Holder-R from the 100/2.8 APO.
I imagine the 'collectors' will not be interested in these lenses and they will depreciate in monetary value which means they will become bargains for people to take pictures.
Best wishes,
Justin
>Hi, Justin,
As a lens with a Leica mount, as opposed to a custom built Leica lens? I think the Angenieux lenses I was talking about were distributed by Leitz, hence Leitz's input on quality. But I know that Angenieux also fitted Nikon mounts; I think for the zooms they made and especially the short zoom. As far as I know, the 'top' Angenieux lenses (the 200 f2.8 ED and the DEM 180 f2.3 APO) were only fitted with the Leica mount, but I could be wrong. Van Hasbroek's Leica history says that the 45-90 f2.8 Angenieux was distributed by Leitz. I have the impression that Pierre Angenieux went in with Nikon after he broke up with Leitz.
My SIGMA lens was also available in other mounts.
Regards
As a lens with a Leica mount, as opposed to a custom built Leica lens? I think the Angenieux lenses I was talking about were distributed by Leitz, hence Leitz's input on quality. But I know that Angenieux also fitted Nikon mounts; I think for the zooms they made and especially the short zoom. As far as I know, the 'top' Angenieux lenses (the 200 f2.8 ED and the DEM 180 f2.3 APO) were only fitted with the Leica mount, but I could be wrong. Van Hasbroek's Leica history says that the 45-90 f2.8 Angenieux was distributed by Leitz. I have the impression that Pierre Angenieux went in with Nikon after he broke up with Leitz.
My SIGMA lens was also available in other mounts.
Regards
H
hektor
Thanks Francis,
Until recently I had the 11930 "Leitz" Angénieux-Zoom 1:2,8/45-90mm. Frankly I thought it a much overrated lens. The focal-length range and initial aperture were attractive, however being an early Zoom its optical quality (or lack thereof) was noticeable. Beautifully made nevertheless.
Sincerely,
Justin
Until recently I had the 11930 "Leitz" Angénieux-Zoom 1:2,8/45-90mm. Frankly I thought it a much overrated lens. The focal-length range and initial aperture were attractive, however being an early Zoom its optical quality (or lack thereof) was noticeable. Beautifully made nevertheless.
Sincerely,
Justin