Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-4?

pcfranchina · 10-07-2008, 08:37 PM

Does anyone have this lens? For the price I am thinking about picking it up.
Sigma | 28-70mm f/2.8-4 Compact High Speed Zoom AF Lens | 634109

I currently have a Pentax SMCP-FA J 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6.
Pentax | SMCP-FA J 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 AL Autofocus Lens | 27707

Would this be an upgrade?

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

drabina · 10-08-2008, 05:21 AM

I used to have that lens few years ago. So unless they have changed the optics, it should be the same. The lens was ok. Nothing to brag about. A lot of distortion at 28mm and I think f/2.8 changed at about 35mm.

If you have DSLR, I would save some $ and get Sigma 17-70mm lens. There is one on marketplace right now for less than $300. But if you are on SLR, then still there are other good options with constant f/2.8 aperture. Once you buy f/2.8 lens, you will never look back.

pcfranchina · 10-08-2008, 07:28 AM

So as a lens for shooting candids at parties, not too good?

*WMBP* · 10-08-2008, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by pcfranchina

Does anyone have this lens? For the price I am thinking about picking it up.
Sigma | 28-70mm f/2.8-4 Compact High Speed Zoom AF Lens | 634109

I own and have owned quite a few Sigma lenses and my experience with them has generally been quite good. A year ago, I owned the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 (not the f/2.8-8 that you asked about) and I thought it was quite good, but I sold it because I also had the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Both were good and I only needed one, so I sold the Sigma.

drabina recommend that you consider instead the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5. I agree. I own this lens and like it pretty well. These snapshots were taken with it the other day.

Picasa Web Albums - William - 20081005 Stat...

Nothing special but in a couple of the photos you'll be able to see its good qualities. This shot and a couple others were taken wide open (17mm). I haven't used the 28-70 f/2.8-4 that you ask about it, but my impression is that it's not considered as good as the 17-70.

Will

deejjjaaaa · 10-08-2008, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by pcfranchina

Does anyone have this lens? For the price I am thinking about picking it up.
Sigma | 28-70mm f/2.8-4 Compact High Speed Zoom AF Lens | 634109

I currently have a Pentax SMCP-FA J 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6.
Pentax | SMCP-FA J 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 AL Autofocus Lens | 27707

Would this be an upgrade?

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

but Sigma 24-60/2.8 EX DG from Cameta Camera (ebay or amazon) : ~USD $50 more but much better...

*WMBP* · 10-08-2008, 08:37 AM

pcfranchina,

I clicked the link you gave to the listing for the lens over at B&H. Hadn't done that when I wrote my first response.

I generally don't pay very close attention to the review when there is only one, unless it's thorough enough to give me some confidence that the reviewer knows what he's talking about. But this lens has two reviews, both very enthusiastic. Bottom line: It seems like it's at least as good as the Pentax 18-55 kit lens, which is already not a bad lens.

I note also that the price ($150) is quite good. Remember that every purchase you make - whether it's a lens, or a body, or whatever - involves compromise. And compromising a bit on quality in order to save money certainly makes sense. The 17-70 macro that I have costs $400. That's more than twice as much as the lens you're considering, and I doubt that the better lens is more than twice as good. It's the nature of these things that, at some point, you start to pay a significant amount of money for small amounts of extra quality.

So my impression is, the lens you're considering looks like it might be a decent purchase. Appears to be an improvement over the kit lens, in terms of range especially at the telephoto end, and also in terms of speed (the kit lens only goes to f/3.5, if I recall correctly), and it might be marginally better in terms of image quality, if the reviewers at B&H are right. Check out B&H's return policy carefully. But if you don't want to spend more than $150-200, this looks like it would be okay for the purpose you described (shooting parties).

By the way, although I don't know the Pentax 28-80 that you mentioned, I would not consider it. It's longer than the kit, but you lose the wide angle, so in terms of range, it's got no real advantage: it's different, but not better. And it's slower than the Sigma you're considering.

Good luck.

Will

pcfranchina · 10-08-2008, 08:38 AM

wow this just went from a $150.00 lens to something kinda pricey.

deejjjaaaa · 10-08-2008, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by WMBP

The 17-70 macro that I have costs $400.

it costs ~USD $260 using M$ cashback... that is what I paid, not to B&H of course.

pcfranchina · 10-08-2008, 09:31 AM

well this is the lens i am using now for the purpose of shooting candids.

Pentax | SMCP-FA J 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 AL Autofocus Lens | 27707

*WMBP* · 10-08-2008, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by pcfranchina

wow this just went from a $150.00 lens to something kinda pricey.

Looks like the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 macro can be had for about $350 from Amazon.

But look, price is one of the factors that we all consider - well, all of us who aren't Bill Gates - when we buy camera stuff. When I'm buying lenses, here are the factors I consider:

Focal length. This means first, prime or zoom? What focal length (or lengths, if it's a zoom)?
Aperture. What's the max aperture? Is it fixed aperture or variable?
PRICE
Image quality
Physical features, including build quality, size, etc.
Other features like auto-focus manual adjust, macro capability, etc.

Image quality (factor #3) is of course the most subjective factor and the most difficult to judge because, well, you don't get to make your own mind up until you HAVE the lens. So you listen to reviews and user recommendations. There is a rough correspondence between price and image quality but it is VERY rough. There probably are mediocre lenses out there that are expensive. And I know that there are good lenses that aren't very expensive (like the Pentax auto-focus 50 f/1.4 or the Pentax 16-45 f/4).

THe point here is that I have put PRICE in position #3 - above image quality. I think that is absolutely the right place to put it and it's where nearly everybody puts it. It's not the FIRST consideration. After all, if your budget = $150, you don't buy the first thing that fits in your budget, you figure out what you need or want, then try to find it for $150. But while price isn't the first consideration, it's still pretty high on the list - ABOVE image quality. Of course, if you're a pro or very experienced photographer with a serious budget, it's possible that image quality WILL trump price. But image quality doesn't trump price even for most of us who are trying to make money with our cameras. If it did, we'd all be using Nikon D3s or Hasselblads (or film), or we'd all be shooting with nothing but Pentax and Zeiss primes.

Once you've determined that a lens's focal length and aperture meet your needs, the main thing you want to know about a lens is that it doesn't suck. Some do - not many, but some - and you don't want to spend even $150 on a lens that stinks. But that doesn't sound like it's the case here. If you have $150 to spend, don't feel bad about considering the lens you asked about. There are no doubt better lenses. But that's always the case.

Will