My $10 28mm f/2.8 steal deal

[480sparky42 41]

While haunting the local camera store, I occasionally dig around in a box they have in the back that's chock-full of oddball old lenses. Most of them are broken, scratched or otherwise usable only for paperweights and doorstops.

Yesterday, however, I found a nifty little Sigma 28mm f/2.8 Mini-Wide II in a Nikon mount down at the bottom. Some of the markings on the barrel have worn off, but the front glass has just a couple barely-perceptible scratches and the rear glass is perfect. No internal dust is visible. The price tag has fallen off, so I asked what they'd want for it. Their response: $10.

I took a pair of test shots to compare it with my Nikkor 28/2.8 AF. Although I'm losing AF with the Siggy, I gotta say it blows the Nikkor out of the water.

 

[tirediron]

Good score!

 

[sm4him]

I am going to get you to start scouring your little local spot for lenses for ME.
Because we have no local options for finding goodies like that. And I'm jealous.

 

[robbins.photo]

I buy my used lenses from a guy named Vinnie, he sells them out of the trunk of his car on the corner of 58th and Center. Sometimes 60th and Center. Occasionally 24th and Vine. He also sells stereo equipment. Hmmm...

Lol

 

[hamlet]

That is practically giving it away.


Reminds me of my own bargain, i got my 50mm 1.4 art for €670. Normal price is €840.

 

[Rick50]

Nice, If you ever find a Canon 500mm, F/4 grab it!

 

[Braineack]

I'll PP you $35 shipped for it

 

[Designer]

They sold you a paperweight and you came away with a lens.

 

[480sparky42 41]

Managed a bit of time to take a couple of comparison shots. Knowing the achilles heel of the Nikkor AF is the terrible corners at ANY aperture, but f/11 being the lesser of 7 evils, I took two equal shots with both.

This is the extreme lower left corner of both, at 100%:

Nikkor:

Sigma:

The Sigma tends to underexpose a bit, as well is giving a more blue cast to the images. But these were shot in JPEG simply for sharpness comparison, so shooting in raw will give me far more lattitude in editing and correcting these small discrepencies.

 

[D-B-J]

Managed a bit of time to take a couple of comparison shots. Knowing the achilles heel of the Nikkor AF is the terrible corners at ANY aperture, but f/11 being the lesser of 7 evils, I took two equal shots with both.

This is the extreme lower left corner of both, at 100%:

Nikkor:

Sigma:

The Sigma tends to underexpose a bit, as well is giving a more blue cast to the images. But these were shot in JPEG simply for sharpness comparison, so shooting in raw will give me far more lattitude in editing and correcting these small discrepencies.

Seems like the sigma is sharper...

 

[480sparky42 41]

Seems like the sigma is sharper...

And across the board, it is. The corners of the Nikkor are dog poop, regardless of the aperture.

The Sigma is sharper, although the difference is much less that shown here at the center. But sharper nonetheless. The Siggy is much sharper at 2.8 and 4 than the Nikkor, and although the Nikkor greatly improves by f/11, the Sigma still is a tad bit sharper. Even when diffraction starts to set in at f/16, the Sigma still emerges on top.

The Sigma also has a lot less vignetting when used at f/4 and 2.8.

Maybe some day I'll compare it to my 17-35 AF-D @ 28mm, as well as my old pre-Ai 28mm.

 

[Rick50]

I have a couple of Sigmas and like them. No Nikons I suppose because I shoot Canon. I have a Tamron that's good too. Oh, lens's lens's. Back on topic!

 

[annamaria]

You lucky dog. Wish we had a bargain shop around here.