[Wendy Ann]

I have a Pentax 16-50/2.8 da, which I use most of the time and have an opportunity to buy a Sigma 35mm. Is there a great advantage to having the Sigma or is the 16-50 a good enough lens? I mainly liked the idea of having a Prime lens that will shoot in low light conditions and has a nice bokeh. I am sampling the Pentax 31mm F/1.8 this weekend but have been told that the Sigma is better for producing sharp images. I have a Pentax K-3. Any advice would be really appreciated.

[hcc]

You are comparing apple and orange. I like primes because their IQ can be excellent for a modest price, compared to zoom lenses. More importantly, a prime lens had a single focal lens and the photographer (you) must learn to move around to get the best shot.

I cannot comment on the 16-50mm nor Sigma 35mm. I have neither. I have the FA31mm and I love it. It has great IQ, excellent low light capability (definitely with the K-3, but also with older cameras like K-7 and K-20) and it is a nimble. Relatively small, lightweight and easy to carry.

My 5 cents....

[gosman]

I would be glad to take the 16-50 off of your hands since you don't need it or appreciate it. Just let me know.

[Adam]

The Sigma 35mm F1.4 is one of the best prime lenses currently on the market, period. But yes, it's an apples and oranges comparison as it doesn't deliver the versatility of the zoom.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[stevebrot]

But yes, it's an apples and oranges comparison as it doesn't deliver the versatility of the zoom.

Yeah...I hear it really sucks at 16mm...


Steve

[airjames]

Pros of 16-50: Wide Angle + different lengths + Weatherproof

Pros of 35 1.4 Art: Bokeh, Silent operation, Sharpness beyond sharp, Low Light Shooting.

I personally would get the 35mm Art because it has everything with workarounds. Wide angle, use a tripod and pan, then stitch photos in postprocessing. You can get more exercise to get the right angle and think more. Just buy a weatherproof case for $xx on ebay. You can't really make up for low light shots you never got or sharp details you couldn't get.

[Rondec]

Do you shoot a lot at 35mm? If you do, then getting a prime in that focal length could be worthwhile. The Sigma is not a small lens, but it is quite sharp and certainly will have better sharpness than your 16-50 up till f5.6, anyway. But there are some times when you need a zoom.

This was shot at 29mm and f5.6 with the 16-50.

[Madaboutpix]

Like the other posters, I wouldn't phrase this as an either-or decision. Both lenses have their uses and strengths and will enrich your kit. Personally, I haven't missed the Sigma very much so far, given that my DA 35mm Macro covers that focal length in a compact package and is a confident performer already wide open at F2.8. I'm sure the Sigma is a great lens, but in the end it's what you do with it that matters ...

BTW, that shot is gorgeous, Vincent. Wonderful atmosphere, and expert framing.

[Wendy Ann]

Thanks for all your comments. I love my 16-50mm but do feel that the Sigma would be a great lens to have. I really appreciate all of you taking the time to educate me.

[ChatMechant]

LBA's a hell of a drug.....