Experiences with the Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC Macro?

sbmitschke · 08-14-2007, 11:25 PM

Happy K10D owner here.

I'm currently looking to get a lens to replace my 18-55 kit lens as my new general purpose walk around lens.

I find that I tend to shoot more on the wide side and often times under less than ideal light.

I first considered the sigma 17-70, but then started reading up on the 18-50ex macro (the newer one)

For me, a faster lens is more important than a few extra mm.

I've read a few reviews 18-50 ex macro (though most are based on the non-macro version), but certainly the 17-70 is discussed much more. Both are in the same price range.

If anyone has experience with the 18-50 ex macro, I'd be happy to hear your opinions.

How is it wide open?
Hows the focus speed as compared to the standard kit lens?
Build Quality?

The new Pentax sdm lenses look nice, but they're a little on the pricier side for me.

Thanks

Stephen

Richard Day · 08-15-2007, 03:10 AM

The new DA* 16-50 would be your ideal lens. Worth the extra IMO.

Pentax glass for Pentax cameras!

matiki · 08-15-2007, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by sbmitschke

Happy K10D owner here.

I'm currently looking to get a lens to replace my 18-55 kit lens as my new general purpose walk around lens.

I find that I tend to shoot more on the wide side and often times under less than ideal light.

I first considered the sigma 17-70, but then started reading up on the 18-50ex macro (the newer one)

For me, a faster lens is more important than a few extra mm.

I've read a few reviews 18-50 ex macro (though most are based on the non-macro version), but certainly the 17-70 is discussed much more. Both are in the same price range.

If anyone has experience with the 18-50 ex macro, I'd be happy to hear your opinions.

How is it wide open?
Hows the focus speed as compared to the standard kit lens?
Build Quality?

The new Pentax sdm lenses look nice, but they're a little on the pricier side for me.

Thanks

Stephen

I've handled it (but not used it), so I'll address my impression of build quality: far superior to the kit lens (but then again, that's not hard to do). My recently purchased M series lenses are also far superior to the Sigma, and the kit lens isn't worth comparing.

sbmitschke · 08-15-2007, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Richard Day

The new DA* 16-50 would be your ideal lens. Worth the extra IMO.

Pentax glass for Pentax cameras!

I agree it would be ideal! I certainly agree the new lenses are fine and offers other great features like ultrasonic motors, weather sealing, quick shift and better optics.

But, with the more than twice the price, it's out of my price range.

The Pentax 16-45 F4 is also in the price range (with rebates) that I've considered -- but still looking at Sigma 18-50 F2.8 Macro for the faster lens.

Stephen

SimonMW · 08-16-2007, 04:31 AM

I've just ordered a K10D and the Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC lens. I'll post up some shots if you will excuse my lack of talent in stills photography (I'm video by trade)!

Because I am rather lacking in the green stuff at the moment I did a lot of reading up before I made the purchase, and so far all the reviews I have read about this lens are glowing. Perhaps some issues with chroma abberation in some instances, but no lens will ever be completely CA free.

Good luck finding one though! The only place I could find that had them in stock at the same price as Warehouse Express (279 UKP) was Camera World

Now I just have to hold my excitement until the equipment arrives!

Wethphotography · 08-16-2007, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Richard Day

The new DA* 16-50 would be your ideal lens. Worth the extra IMO.

Pentax glass for Pentax cameras!

Hey Richard,
I was wondering if you have had a chance to test the DA* 16-50, yet. And if so, it would be great to get your impressions. I was not pleased with my copy and returned it. In the long run, I am hoping I just got a bad copy; but I am going to wait for some more reviews of that lens before I try another copy. However, the DA * 50-135 that I got is awesome. (sorry if I am kind of hijacking this thread.)

sbmitschke · 08-17-2007, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Wethphotography

Hey Richard,
I was wondering if you have had a chance to test the DA* 16-50, yet. And if so, it would be great to get your impressions. I was not pleased with my copy and returned it. In the long run, I am hoping I just got a bad copy; but I am going to wait for some more reviews of that lens before I try another copy. However, the DA * 50-135 that I got is awesome. (sorry if I am kind of hijacking this thread.)

Not much of a Hijack

I would be interested in the opinions from someone who has both DA* 16-50 and the Sigma 18-50 Macro EX. Weather sealing and quieter motors are a nice feature of the DA*, but they are less of a requirement for me.

-Stephen

Richard Day · 08-19-2007, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by Wethphotography

Hey Richard,
I was wondering if you have had a chance to test the DA* 16-50, yet. And if so, it would be great to get your impressions. I was not pleased with my copy and returned it. In the long run, I am hoping I just got a bad copy; but I am going to wait for some more reviews of that lens before I try another copy. However, the DA * 50-135 that I got is awesome. (sorry if I am kind of hijacking this thread.)

Not yet, I'm still waiting to get mine, but I have some test images from a pre-production lens.

In what way were you not pleased? If you can be more specific I could perhaps make some observations.

Many people are comparing this lens at 16mm to the Sigma at 18mm and making comparisons mainly about distortion and CA. I feel that at 18mm the Pentax should be very close to the Sigma, at 24, 35 and 50mm there is little difference between the two. It's a bit unfair expecting the lens to be similar at 16mm to the Sigma at 18mm.

As far as the 50-135 is concerned, I agree that that is a better lens overall, but it's not covering as wide a zoom range and as a mid to short telephoto lens, it is well known that this range yields the best results from zoom designs for this size of lens mount.

I would say that the DA* 16-50 is a reasonable step up from the 16-45 in most areas apart from distortion at 16mm (I'd guess 20% better?), but I tried the pre-macro Sigma 18-50 against my DA 16-45 and felt it was no better at all and the loss of the 16mm end was the killer as far as I was concerned, I rather have as much as 5% distortion and some CA than no 16mm FOV!

Personally, I've never been happy with any Sigma lens, although others have a high regard for them. I've yet to have my opinion altered.

Wethphotography · 08-19-2007, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Richard Day

Not yet, I'm still waiting to get mine, but I have some test images from a pre-production lens.

In what way were you not pleased? If you can be more specific I could perhaps make some observations.

Richard,
Thanks for the reply. In another thread in this discussion area Da*16-50 vs. Tamron 28-75, I posted some photos I had taken with both the DA * 16-50 and Tamron 28-75 at f2.8 both at 28mm and at 50mm. The DA* compared very poorly. I know that this is not really a "fair" comparison, but I was hoping to replace the Tamron along with a wide angle sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 with the two DA* lenses. From my test with the lens I got, the DA* 16-50 IMHO was really poor at 2.8. One reason for spending $900 US for this lens was for good f2.8 performance. The DA* 50-135 equalled the Tamron at 50mm and 2.8. I am hoping that I got a bad copy of the 16-50! I returned mine and I will be awaiting other user reviews before I buy another.

Richard Day · 08-20-2007, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by Wethphotography

Richard,
Thanks for the reply. In another thread in this discussion area Da*16-50 vs. Tamron 28-75, I posted some photos I had taken with both the DA * 16-50 and Tamron 28-75 at f2.8 both at 28mm and at 50mm. The DA* compared very poorly. I know that this is not really a "fair" comparison, but I was hoping to replace the Tamron along with a wide angle sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 with the two DA* lenses. From my test with the lens I got, the DA* 16-50 IMHO was really poor at 2.8. One reason for spending $900 US for this lens was for good f2.8 performance. The DA* 50-135 equalled the Tamron at 50mm and 2.8. I am hoping that I got a bad copy of the 16-50! I returned mine and I will be awaiting other user reviews before I buy another.

I took a look at the example shots and I would concur with many of the other members that the lens was faulty. Certainly I would be returning it if I had such examples, corner softness is one thing, but those are soft all over and suffer low resolution even at those resized shots. Definitely not right.

Incidentally your Tamron is a really first class example of that lens. I have known several folk who've had to go through a few before finding perfect examples. Luckily I've always had good experience with Tamron, well, so far!

I will endeavour to do a similar comparison when both lenses are available to me (I should be able to arrange this). It may not be until early to mid September, if that's okay?