Need assistance to identify a Sigma Lens.

[Snooks]

Hi,

As you may be aware I am brand new to photography and I even had a hard time turning the damn thing on and then working out what to do. Fortunately the You Tube Videos available on the camera and the info in this forum have helped me enormously. It is primarily for my daughter who is contemplating doing a TAFE Course and between us, we are having a a bit of fun and meanwhile, I can see how serious she is and to what extent I need to consider assisting her financially with a camera that would be in the class that she will need.

So I purchased an old Nikon 200D with what was described as "Sigma 24mm Ultra Wide Macro f / 2.8 Lens". I believe that the lens is probably not what I thought and it may have been incorrectly described to me. I need to determine what lens we have so we can learn to use it and ensure that we can at least do some basic photography and have some fun.

I don't have a smart phone or another camera so I took a photo pointing at the reflection in the mirror, then using GILP i flipped it and did some changes so that the writing stands out and isn't backwards. The colours are awful but you can read the writing and that is what is important. I could not upload the photo for some reason and also could not attach it, so, please use the following link http://img.gg/En9AON7

The writing can be read and the only other writing on the lens is on the OUTSIDE, just near the lens lip at the extreme front, where it says MACRO.

Being new and scared of damaging anything, could it just be a magnification ring or something screwed into a lens? If so it would be about the thickness of a polarizing filter ring. Any information that you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

[Hawthy]

I don't know that lens specifically (some of our Pentax users might) but here is what a Google search shows that it looks like: https://www.pentaxforums.com/userrev...r-wide-ii.html

This might be getting a bit technical, but if you take a photo with it and put it on your computer, you can use what's called an EXIF viewer to look at the technical data embedded in the digital image. I think that might tell you exactly what lens was used.

[ameerat42]

Funny, isn't it? I can find heaps of reviews about that lens, and dated only about 2016, but NOTHING on the Sigma site
So it would be a discontinued model (and I even looked in there).

Now it is labelled as "Super Wide", but on your camera it will be just a little wider than a "standard lens". - Balme Sigma's
advertising. It also says "Macro", but this is only up to 1/4 subject size. - Good for close-ups.

On the +ve side, the reviews are generally good. (To find some, just Google the whole name of the lens.)

It has a 52mm filter size, shown as 52Ø.

What do you mean by damaging things?

Did you get a (probably short, flanged) lens hood with the lens AND a lens cap?

If you are happy with the quality of the pictures it produces then nothing to worry about. It is fairly reasonably matched to
your camera for general photography. Your "main problem" is that it is not really a wide angle lens on your APSC camera.
(And it would not be particularly wide on a "full frame" camera, either. - Marketing!)

[Snooks]

A quick glance at that link and it looked very similar. I will go back and read it thoroughly and I will certainly try using the EXIF option.

Thanks mate

[Tannin]

Damn it, the Internet ate my post!

I already looked at your EXIF Snook, don't worry about that bit. (It didn't tell us anything we don't already know.)

Brilliant idea with the mirror!

What you have is a perfectly good little wide-normal prime lens, suitable for general purpose photography. A very old model, but none the worse for that.

I suspect that you have a clear(ish) filter attached to it, which should be removed. Find someone to post a picture of the lens (with a phone or whatever) so we can confirm. If so, it just unscrews. If it seems to be stuck, get a friend who is familiar with cameras to look at it for you - sometimes it needs a bit of (careful!) force. But make sure it really is a filter first.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, the Internet gave my post back! Here is the original. Maybe since I had to type it twice, someone will read it twice. Or maybe not.


Don't bother with Hawthy's sensible suggestion Snooks. You have already done that. Unfortunately the EXIF info attached to the image you unloaded does not contain the exact lens model. (You typically only get that with newer camera bodies. Older ones only provide more basic information.)

But that doesn't matter. We already know the important things.

This is a 24mm prime lens. On your camera, this acts as a wide-normal lens, good for many general purpose photography tasks, and as good as any other to get started with. Over time, you will add others to it to do different jobs.

The lens is pretty much as described. It is not a true macro lens (i.e., designed for very small close-ups of, for example, insects and flowers) but that's not a problem at this stage. (Some lens manufacturers label everything "macro", regardless of whether it is or isn't. It's just a bit of routine sleazy marketing. I dare say Ford market huge V8 F-150s as "economical", with about the same regard for truth.)

What it is is a perfectly sensible little wide-normal prime. It is a very old lens, long out of manufacture, but none the worse for that.

It's hard to be sure from the piicture, but I suspect that the lens has a clear(ish) filter screwed onto it. If so, you will want to remove that. It should unscrew just using your finger-strength. If in doubt, ask a friend who is familiar with cameras to look at it for you. Or get someone to take a picture of it with a smartphone and upload it here.

[jim]

It seems to be a perfectly decent 24mm F2.8 from the 1980s. It should be perfectly compatible with your D200, and if I’ve got the id right there seems to be nothing in particular about it that will prevent you getting great photos.

[Snooks]

Funny, isn't it? I can find heaps of reviews about that lens, and dated only about 2016, but NOTHING on the Sigma site
So it would be a discontinued model (and I even looked in there).

Now it is labelled as "Super Wide", but on your camera it will be just a little wider than a "standard lens". - Balme Sigma's
advertising. It also says "Macro", but this is only up to 1/4 subject size. - Good for close-ups.

On the +ve side, the reviews are generally good. (To find some, just Google the whole name of the lens.)

It has a 52mm filter size, shown as 52Ø.

What do you mean by damaging things?

Did you get a (probably short, flanged) lens hood with the lens AND a lens cap?

If you are happy with the quality of the pictures it produces then nothing to worry about. It is fairly reasonably matched to
your camera for general photography. Your "main problem" is that it is not really a wide angle lens on your APSC camera.
(And it would not be particularly wide on a "full frame" camera, either. - Marketing!)

Sorry Mate, somehow I overlooked your post at first because i focused on Hawthy's.

The important part is that it is reasonable quality and that we can learn using the lens. identifying it properly was important to me because by doing so, naming it correctly, over time I then can understand exactly what that lens can do. So i know that the "Blue Widget" lens will allow such and such and as such, all "Blue Widget" lenses will do the same, or similar, assuming they are the same focal length and have the same or similar aperture settings.

When i sad i was concerned about damaging anything, i meant taking the lens off, concerns about forcing anything etc. As yet, I personally have not removed the lens although the man I bought it off did. Just a bit nervous about damaging anything but confidence will grow in time.

Reading all the threads in this forum is amazing......... so many tips, things to learn and some amazing photos to look at.

Thanks for the info guys.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi Tannin.

Odd, I missed this post also. That's very coincidental I wonder of something mucked up?

I actually thought, or still do think a filter of some sort may be attached and I think this because:

1. I can't see why the word MACRO would be where it is, right near the front lip. If it was the whole lens it would be placed at a more convenient place and in larger writing.
2. It just looks like a filter or cover of some sort is on there.

Having said that I tried to unscrew it and using reasonable force, it didn't move. I'm scared to try harder in case I damage the lens or bend it or something and one can assume that given the age of the camera, it will have been on there for a very long time. It may never come off although I hope it will because I would like to put a polarizing filter on there.

It came with a lens cap but no hood, which is a future requirement for sure.

Damn it, the Internet ate my post!

I already looked at your EXIF Snook, don't worry about that bit. (It didn't tell us anything we don't already know.)

Brilliant idea with the mirror!

What you have is a perfectly good little wide-normal prime lens, suitable for general purpose photography. A very old model, but none the worse for that.

I suspect that you have a clear(ish) filter attached to it, which should be removed. Find someone to post a picture of the lens (with a phone or whatever) so we can confirm. If so, it just unscrews. If it seems to be stuck, get a friend who is familiar with cameras to look at it for you - sometimes it needs a bit of (careful!) force. But make sure it really is a filter first.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, the Internet gave my post back! Here is the original. Maybe since I had to type it twice, someone will read it twice. Or maybe not.


Don't bother with Hawthy's sensible suggestion Snooks. You have already done that. Unfortunately the EXIF info attached to the image you unloaded does not contain the exact lens model. (You typically only get that with newer camera bodies. Older ones only provide more basic information.)

But that doesn't matter. We already know the important things.

This is a 24mm prime lens. On your camera, this acts as a wide-normal lens, good for many general purpose photography tasks, and as good as any other to get started with. Over time, you will add others to it to do different jobs.

The lens is pretty much as described. It is not a true macro lens (i.e., designed for very small close-ups of, for example, insects and flowers) but that's not a problem at this stage. (Some lens manufacturers label everything "macro", regardless of whether it is or isn't. It's just a bit of routine sleazy marketing. I dare say Ford market huge V8 F-150s as "economical", with about the same regard for truth.)

What it is is a perfectly sensible little wide-normal prime. It is a very old lens, long out of manufacture, but none the worse for that.

It's hard to be sure from the piicture, but I suspect that the lens has a clear(ish) filter screwed onto it. If so, you will want to remove that. It should unscrew just using your finger-strength. If in doubt, ask a friend who is familiar with cameras to look at it for you. Or get someone to take a picture of it with a smartphone and upload it here.

[Tannin]

Filters can be quite difficult to remove, Snooks. Usually they re OK but when they get stuck they can require tools. Either a large pair of multi-grips (not the normal size, which doesn't open far enough) or one of those ring-things with a handle you use to grip pipes or open your Granny's pickle bottles. Best to have someone with a little experience look at it first, I reckon.

[ameerat42]

On the question of whether it has/has not got a filter, do this simple inspection:

Look at the front of the lens. The first actual lens element is the smaller glass about
half the diameter of the lens body. IF IT has got a larger flat glass surface at the very
front of the whole lens element then it is (most likely) a filter.

If it is a clear filter then AND you cannot easily remove it, then don't worry too much
about it, as it will probably have negligible effect on the IQ (Image Quality) that the
system is capable of.

Have a look at this page of images. The word "Macro" that appears "near the front" of
the lens body is actually engraved on the lens and refers to that much touted function
that it is supposed to sport.

As said above, it seems to be a capable enough lens. When you feel that its usage has
some limitations to your photographic needs then it will be time to look for some other
lenses as complements to this one.

- - - Updated - - -

PS: If you feel an overwhelming urge to go ahead and remove any such filter that may be
attached the lens, then perhaps take it to a "good old local" camera store, where they will
doubtless do it for nothing. - But beware of their suggesting you buy something you most
probably will not need

[Tannin]

Good info from Ameerat in the post above, except that clear filters are highly variable. Some are fine and don't do very much harm. Cheap ones can be terrible. It all depends. There was something about the picture you posted that made my cheap-filter-radar go off. Might be a false alarm, of course.

[Snooks]

I agree totally Tannin

- - - Updated - - -
@amerrat42

Looking at that page of images, top row 4th from the left with the url dyumx.com is the exact writing that is on mine. All writing regarding sizes etc is in the same spot and are identical

On the question of whether it has/has not got a filter, do this simple inspection:

Look at the front of the lens. The first actual lens element is the smaller glass about
half the diameter of the lens body. IF IT has got a larger flat glass surface at the very
front of the whole lens element then it is (most likely) a filter.

If it is a clear filter then AND you cannot easily remove it, then don't worry too much
about it, as it will probably have negligible effect on the IQ (Image Quality) that the
system is capable of.

Have a look at this page of images. The word "Macro" that appears "near the front" of
the lens body is actually engraved on the lens and refers to that much touted function
that it is supposed to sport.

As said above, it seems to be a capable enough lens. When you feel that its usage has
some limitations to your photographic needs then it will be time to look for some other
lenses as complements to this one.

- - - Updated - - -

PS: If you feel an overwhelming urge to go ahead and remove any such filter that may be
attached the lens, then perhaps take it to a "good old local" camera store, where they will
doubtless do it for nothing. - But beware of their suggesting you buy something you most
probably will not need

- - - Updated - - -

Good info from Ameerat in the post above, except that clear filters are highly variable. Some are fine and don't do very much harm. Cheap ones can be terrible. It all depends. There was something about the picture you posted that made my cheap-filter-radar go off. Might be a false alarm, of course.

The guy seemed to have some very expensive cameras because i googled them up and one was in the $6k range, but having said that, yes, it could be a 10c lens filter and poor quality, I cannot tell at this stage.

The photo is shocking because i took it in the mirror, then had to reverse it to read the writing and only really sharpened the image and didnt adjust the colours much at all, because that was not the intention. My point being it is probably more my taking of the photo than of the lens filter itself.

I've only actually taken 2-3 photos outside because in the week we've had it I didnt use it until Taylor was around because technically i bought it for her (lol) and then i have been so busy. I will see if i can upload an image in a second ad that may allow better judgement of the lens.

- - - Updated - - -

RoseBranch2small.JPG

This is the only image I have had the chance to capture so far. Simply a pruned rose and I was experimenting. Using GIMP i changed the hue a bit, and resized it but nothing else. Next step when i get a second is the same branch using Apeture priority and looking at the difference in the DOF in each image. Just a test to see if i understand DOF which I believe that i do. Until recently i thought DOF only applied to behind the focus point, not in front. So that was important for me to realize

The image was much larger and is stored in Nikon Image can't for the life of me work out how to link to here. I'll keep trying .

[ameerat42]

Snooks. Put your susbsequent images in the proper place for CC, Plants/Fungi or temporarily into
New to Photography.

Here I will talk about how to link images from other sites. There is a "How to" section on this, but
briefly, you've got to find the BB Code for the image. This is usually under "Share/Sharing..."

You then put the BB Code in a post here, as shown here for Flickr... You will have to find where the
BB Code lives for your Nikon storage site.

[Snooks]

Snooks. Put your susbsequent images in the proper place for CC, Plants/Fungi or temporarily into
New to Photography.

Here I will talk about how to link images from other sites. There is a "How to" section on this, but
briefly, you've got to find the BB Code for the image. This is usually under "Share/Sharing..."

You then put the BB Code in a post here, as shown here for Flickr... You will have to find where the
BB Code lives for your Nikon storage site.

Sorry mate i never thought of that, i got involved in the conversation and didn't think. I will pay attention to that in future. I will re-read regarding that BB Code and see what i can do

Thanks and sorry again for not thinking.

[arthurking83]

....

I actually thought, or still do think a filter of some sort may be attached and I think this because:

1. I can't see why the word MACRO would be where it is, right near the front lip. If it was the whole lens it would be placed at a more convenient place and in larger writing.
2. It just looks like a filter or cover of some sort is on there.

Having said that I tried to unscrew it and using reasonable force, it didn't move. I'm scared to try harder in case I damage the lens or bend it or something and one can assume that given the age of the camera, it will have been on there for a very long time. It may never come off although I hope it will because I would like to put a polarizing filter on there...

most 'proper' macro lenses have the word Macro somewhere more obvious on the lens, usually in the name description.

These psuedo macro lenses are not true macro lenses, as already said by Tannin.
The reason this exists has to do with the way some marketing guru decided that when you printed a photo, the print itself could be enlarged to the life size of the subject.

But a proper macro lens actually captures the subject at a 1:1 ratio on the sensor in the camera(sensor could be either film or digital sensor), but the point difference is that if you photographed a 10mm subject, the real macro lens would capture the image at the true size of the subject .. ie. 10mm.

With the print version of a macro lens, your Sigma does a 1:4 repro ratio at the sensor, so if you printed the image at 4x the size of the actual sensor(ie. at about 100mm on the long side) then the print image version of that 10mm subject would measure 10mm too.

The silliness of the 'marketing guru' macro lens description is that just about every lens when focused closely at a subject can produce a print that would effectively create a macro image.
Note that the term 'focus closely' was underlined, as this is the important criteria on how a lens is designated macro, and that this very property is what is happening with your lens.
That is, as you focus closer and closer you magnify the subject's physical size onto the sensor plane.

If you do a search for a proper macro lens, some lenses start at focal lengths near 60-ish mm, but they primarily have focal lengths of about 90-150mm or so .. but with a little variation above that as well.
The reason is at those focal lengths, you get more distance between lens and subject as you focus closer.
Theoretically any lens is capable of doing macro level photography, it's just that it needs distance between the lens and the camera to achieve this ability. The only downside is that with short focal length lenses, you need to get the subject so close to the front lens, it starts to become an impossible situaton .. even to the point where some lenses actually focus within themselves.
That is, you can set the focus point to a -ve distance to the front of the lens.
So how this relates to your Sigma lens.
Remembering that as you focus closer you increase magnification of the subject onto the sensor, take note of the closest focus distance possible on your Sigma lens. I think it's about 0.20 m. Note that this is not from the front of the lens, this measurement is to the 'film plane' or sensor plane.
This is marked on a Nikon body on the RHS shoulder at the top near the rear corner, a O with a - line marked through it. Ө Almost like that, but the line extends past the sides of the circle. Will be painted white.
That's the sensor plane on the camera.
When you see a focus distance marked anywhere, it's measured to this point.

eg. on your Sigma lens, if the minimum focus distance(MFD) is said to be 0.20m, the put a subject out at 0.20m(20cm), using a ruler and measure it to the distance on that Ө marking on your camera. With the lens set to MFD, your photo should be in focus.

Because of this closer focusing = higher magnification situation, as you focus closer, your lens usually gets longer. I dare say that the Sigma 24mm lens has unit focusing, where the entire lens element set all move together into or out of the lens body as you focus.
So as you focus closer and the lens element group all move out of the body, you see a small lip of this lens grouping begin to protrude from the main lens body.
What Sigma have done is to indicate to the interested photographer that, as you focus closer, you have these so called (but psuedo) macro magnification levels now .. marked at 1:5 and 1:4 reproduction levels.

As for the situation of whether you have a filter on the lens, easy way to tell is: on the very front of the lens where it says Sigma 24mm f/2.8 etc, etc .. is there any glass in front of those lens markings. If you can't physically touch those painted lens markings with your finger, then you have a filter fitted on the lens. Filters have normal threads. It may just be on very tight.
Iv'e had some filters that tightened themselves so much, I had to use a plumbers pipe wrench on the filter to remove it.
As you hold the lens facing away from you(ie. outward) the filter needs to be turned rightwards to be removed. If you're looking directly into the lens, then anti-clockwise, or to the left to remove the filter.
If you have tried to turn it the other way, then you've tightened it more, and because the thread is very fine, it locks up even harder than normal nuts and bolts(fine thread creates more torque, and when over tightened requires even more torque to remove!

I dare say that there is a filter fitted, as there seems to be some weird ghosting in your mirror shot.

If you want us to help confirm if you have a filter fitted: do a mirror shot again, this time in portrait orientation, and get a little further back. you don't have to focus on the front of the lens, but this would help. even with a 25° tilt, it should be fairly obvious to us if there is a filter fitted on the front.
Back in the it's day(crica '98-ish) film was still the primary photography medium, and most photographers shot with UV/clear filters due to their rationalisation that film was more susceptible to UV contamination.
Most didn't realise that the lens itself basically cut 100% of UV transmission to the film anyhow. So there's a high chance that your lens has/had a filter on it.

[Snooks]

Well arthurking83, that was pretty easy and I cannot believe that I did not notice this before.

The writing on the front of the lens, where it states Sigma, super wide etc, I can run my finger over them and actually feel the raised letters printed on the inner rim of the lens. So that can only mean there is no filter on the front.

I cannot believe I overlooked such a simple test

Thank you for bring this to my attention.