Lens buying advice needed. Sigma 18-35mm or Sigma 8-16 Wide angle

graym3546 · 06-24-2016, 10:53 AM

This may seem like a strange choice of lens to be deciding between, but please bear with me.

Obviously if I could afford it, I would buy both. But I can't.

I currently have a K3 - with a Pentax 16-85 (great lens). I also take my Pentax 10-17 fish-eye pretty much everywhere as I love the different perspective it gives.
I also have (but rarely take out of my bag) a Pentax 35mm f2, Pentax 50mm f1.4 and a Tamron 80-200 f2.8.

I want to take some starry night shots on an extended holiday and for general traveling.

I'm leaning towards the 18-35 as the f1.8 would be a big improvement on the 16-85 and the 8-16 is pretty much a non-fisheye version of what I've got in the 10-17.
But I've heard the 18-35 has trouble focusing and that is putting me off and the 8-16 does sound pretty good and would probably replace the 10-17.

If anyone else has tried these lens would love to hear your opinions.

thanks

VoiceOfReason · 06-24-2016, 11:22 AM

Okay, I have both lenses. They are very, very different ones. If you have problems focusing with the 18-35 swap to LV and those woes go away. Personally I have not had any problems with mine. The 18-35 is excellent for night sky shots. It seems to be really well corrected for distortion at the edges. The 8-16... not so much if you plan on stacking. Both are great lenses, but different from each other. Get both! Of course if it is night sky shots you want stick with the 18-35.

**UncleVanya** · 06-24-2016, 01:30 PM

Are you clear on how large the 18-35 and 8-16 are? The 18-35 is faster - but will you carry it. The overlap is large and if you aren't using the 35 f/2 are you really going to use the 18-35? Have you attempted the 35 f/2 for star shots already? The 16-85 is a very well selected travel lens already and the slowness can be replaced by a lightweight small fast prime.

Here's some food for thought:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/234489-my-h...10-images.html

phat_bog · 06-24-2016, 01:49 PM

Hi !
i have the 18-35. If you want your pics to have more soul go for it, and forget the 8-16mm.
The 8-16mm on apsc is eq of the 12-24mm on ff.
Honestly i don't know many photographers using a 12mm on FF. If you really love wide angle, and want another type of results then the 10-17mm already gives you on apsc, you can give a chance to anamorphic lenses

note: you also have the 10-24mm from tamron, they're cheap and very good. And most of all: they accept front filters !!

Last edited by phat_bog; 06-24-2016 at 01:59 PM. Reason: forgot

**UncleVanya** · 06-24-2016, 02:23 PM

Also since you have the 10-17 - read this:
Sigma 8-16mm vs Rokinon 10mm, Pentax 10-17mm, Rokinon 8mm - Review Announcements | PentaxForums.com

graym3546 · 06-24-2016, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

Okay, I have both lenses. They are very, very different ones. If you have problems focusing with the 18-35 swap to LV and those woes go away. Personally I have not had any problems with mine. The 18-35 is excellent for night sky shots. It seems to be really well corrected for distortion at the edges. The 8-16... not so much if you plan on stacking. Both are great lenses, but different from each other. Get both! Of course if it is night sky shots you want stick with the 18-35.

VoiceOfReason, thanks so much, that is exactly the information I wanted to hear.

---------- Post added 06-24-16 at 11:53 PM ----------

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Are you clear on how large the 18-35 and 8-16 are? The 18-35 is faster - but will you carry it. The overlap is large and if you aren't using the 35 f/2 are you really going to use the 18-35? Have you attempted the 35 f/2 for star shots already? The 16-85 is a very well selected travel lens already and the slowness can be replaced by a lightweight small fast prime.

Here's some food for thought:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/234489-my-h...10-images.html

Thanks for the link. I knew it was a big lens, but I see now how big it is. I thought the 16-85 was biggish, but I think is probably much lighter.
My wife already complains about the weight of the camera when she's using it. I'm wishing I had tried one when I was at the camera shop a couple months ago, but the closest is a couple hours drive from here. I haven't tried the 35mm for stars yet as where I live you can only see two stars at night due to the light pollution. Thanks for your help

---------- Post added 06-25-16 at 12:01 AM ----------

Originally posted by phat_bog

Hi !
i have the 18-35. If you want your pics to have more soul go for it, and forget the 8-16mm.
The 8-16mm on apsc is eq of the 12-24mm on ff.
Honestly i don't know many photographers using a 12mm on FF. If you really love wide angle, and want another type of results then the 10-17mm already gives you on apsc, you can give a chance to anamorphic lenses

note: you also have the 10-24mm from tamron, they're cheap and very good. And most of all: they accept front filters !!

Thanks for your help. Great website by the way.

---------- Post added 06-25-16 at 12:12 AM ----------

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Also since you have the 10-17 - read this:
Sigma 8-16mm vs Rokinon 10mm, Pentax 10-17mm, Rokinon 8mm - Review Announcements | PentaxForums.com

Thanks for the link, reading now.

06-24-2016, 10:53 AM	#1
graym3546 New Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 10	Lens buying advice needed. Sigma 18-35mm or Sigma 8-16 Wide angle This may seem like a strange choice of lens to be deciding between, but please bear with me. Obviously if I could afford it, I would buy both. But I can't. I currently have a K3 - with a Pentax 16-85 (great lens). I also take my Pentax 10-17 fish-eye pretty much everywhere as I love the different perspective it gives. I also have (but rarely take out of my bag) a Pentax 35mm f2, Pentax 50mm f1.4 and a Tamron 80-200 f2.8. I want to take some starry night shots on an extended holiday and for general traveling. I'm leaning towards the 18-35 as the f1.8 would be a big improvement on the 16-85 and the 8-16 is pretty much a non-fisheye version of what I've got in the 10-17. But I've heard the 18-35 has trouble focusing and that is putting me off and the 8-16 does sound pretty good and would probably replace the 10-17. If anyone else has tried these lens would love to hear your opinions. thanks

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 8-16mm HSM Ultra Wide Angle zoom lens for Pentax	Edgar_in_Indy	Sold Items	2	10-05-2015 05:44 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 8-16mm HSM Ultra Wide Angle zoom lens for Pentax	Edgar_in_Indy	Sold Items	12	09-02-2015 03:39 PM
pentax 16-50mm f2.8 da* VS sigma 18-35mm 1.8 art lens	bebotette	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	01-07-2015 05:23 PM
sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art or 35mm F1.8 ART ? Help needed	ajaya	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	02-25-2014 08:11 PM

06-24-2016, 11:22 AM	#2
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Okay, I have both lenses. They are very, very different ones. If you have problems focusing with the 18-35 swap to LV and those woes go away. Personally I have not had any problems with mine. The 18-35 is excellent for night sky shots. It seems to be really well corrected for distortion at the edges. The 8-16... not so much if you plan on stacking. Both are great lenses, but different from each other. Get both! Of course if it is night sky shots you want stick with the 18-35.

06-24-2016, 01:30 PM	#3
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Are you clear on how large the 18-35 and 8-16 are? The 18-35 is faster - but will you carry it. The overlap is large and if you aren't using the 35 f/2 are you really going to use the 18-35? Have you attempted the 35 f/2 for star shots already? The 16-85 is a very well selected travel lens already and the slowness can be replaced by a lightweight small fast prime. Here's some food for thought: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/234489-my-h...10-images.html

06-24-2016, 01:49 PM	#4
phat_bog Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2016 Location: Paris Posts: 124	Hi ! i have the 18-35. If you want your pics to have more soul go for it, and forget the 8-16mm. The 8-16mm on apsc is eq of the 12-24mm on ff. Honestly i don't know many photographers using a 12mm on FF. If you really love wide angle, and want another type of results then the 10-17mm already gives you on apsc, you can give a chance to anamorphic lenses note: you also have the 10-24mm from tamron, they're cheap and very good. And most of all: they accept front filters !! Last edited by phat_bog; 06-24-2016 at 01:59 PM. Reason: forgot

06-24-2016, 02:23 PM	#5
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Also since you have the 10-17 - read this: Sigma 8-16mm vs Rokinon 10mm, Pentax 10-17mm, Rokinon 8mm - Review Announcements \| PentaxForums.com

06-24-2016, 03:49 PM	#6
graym3546 New Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 10 Original Poster	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason Okay, I have both lenses. They are very, very different ones. If you have problems focusing with the 18-35 swap to LV and those woes go away. Personally I have not had any problems with mine. The 18-35 is excellent for night sky shots. It seems to be really well corrected for distortion at the edges. The 8-16... not so much if you plan on stacking. Both are great lenses, but different from each other. Get both! Of course if it is night sky shots you want stick with the 18-35. VoiceOfReason, thanks so much, that is exactly the information I wanted to hear. ---------- Post added 06-24-16 at 11:53 PM ---------- Originally posted by UncleVanya Are you clear on how large the 18-35 and 8-16 are? The 18-35 is faster - but will you carry it. The overlap is large and if you aren't using the 35 f/2 are you really going to use the 18-35? Have you attempted the 35 f/2 for star shots already? The 16-85 is a very well selected travel lens already and the slowness can be replaced by a lightweight small fast prime. Here's some food for thought: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/234489-my-h...10-images.html Thanks for the link. I knew it was a big lens, but I see now how big it is. I thought the 16-85 was biggish, but I think is probably much lighter. My wife already complains about the weight of the camera when she's using it. I'm wishing I had tried one when I was at the camera shop a couple months ago, but the closest is a couple hours drive from here. I haven't tried the 35mm for stars yet as where I live you can only see two stars at night due to the light pollution. Thanks for your help ---------- Post added 06-25-16 at 12:01 AM ---------- Originally posted by phat_bog Hi ! i have the 18-35. If you want your pics to have more soul go for it, and forget the 8-16mm. The 8-16mm on apsc is eq of the 12-24mm on ff. Honestly i don't know many photographers using a 12mm on FF. If you really love wide angle, and want another type of results then the 10-17mm already gives you on apsc, you can give a chance to anamorphic lenses note: you also have the 10-24mm from tamron, they're cheap and very good. And most of all: they accept front filters !! Thanks for your help. Great website by the way. ---------- Post added 06-25-16 at 12:12 AM ---------- Originally posted by UncleVanya Also since you have the 10-17 - read this: Sigma 8-16mm vs Rokinon 10mm, Pentax 10-17mm, Rokinon 8mm - Review Announcements \| PentaxForums.com Thanks for the link, reading now.