Sigma 17-70mm vs Kit Lens

runjmb · 08-20-2007, 06:17 AM

So I am saving up to purchase the K100D and have been looking at buying just the body and getting a better lense. I was looking at the Sigma 17-70mm. It seems like a pretty fast lens (f 2.8/4), with good range, and gets very good reviews. Is it worth upgrading to this lens over the Pentax kit lens?

I do like having the longer range of the Sigma since you get the equivalent of ~26- 105mm. It would compliment nicely with the telephoto I am buying.

Thanks!

vinzer · 08-20-2007, 07:00 AM

I would say that it's an upgrade, just basing on the lens being faster and having a bigger range than the kit lens.

That's no knock on the kit lens, which performs admirably well, more so compared to other kit lenses.

I'm also looking to replace the kit lens with either the 17-70, 24-70 2.8, 18-50 2.8, Tamron's 28-75 2.8, or the Pentax 28-105 3.2-4.5. I'm still weighing my options as of the moment.

*WMBP* · 08-20-2007, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by runjmb

So I am saving up to purchase the K100D and have been looking at buying just the body and getting a better lense. I was looking at the Sigma 17-70mm. It seems like a pretty fast lens (f 2.8/4), with good range, and gets very good reviews. Is it worth upgrading to this lens over the Pentax kit lens?

If you have some idea what you are doing or what you want, I think that buying the body only is a good idea. The kit lens is not bad and is a good deal, since you actually pay so little for it. But after I got the lenses I preferred in the same general range as the kit lens (I have the Tamron 28-75 and the Pentax 16-45), I found myself never using the 18-55 kit lens at all.

Don't know the lens you're talking about but the range is good. I had the Sigma 28-70 and liked it very much; sold it only because I also acquited the Tamron 28-75, and I didn't need 'em both. I currently have just one Sigma lens, the 10-20, but I think it's a quite decent lens.

Will

kenyee · 08-20-2007, 08:37 AM

I've had both and got rid of the kit lens (but it's *much* lighter).
The Sigma 17-70 is: faster focusing, quieter, has better colors, is sharper, and did I mention heavier? :-)
I think the only thing I'd consider replacing it w/ is a DA17-70 version w/ an HSM motor (assuming the image quality is the same) or a Tamron 28-75/2.8 (if you can deal w/ the lack of wide angle)...

mcjm78 · 08-20-2007, 10:25 AM

I just bought the Sigma 28-70 2.8 for a bargain price. Couldn't be happier with the test shot I did so far during the weekend. Tried outdoor and indoor, and so far I'm happy with the low light performance.

Maybe time to sell my Sigma 20-40 2.8, but will miss the wide end.

If you can get good price on the Sigma, I would say go for it (I got the pre-DG version)

simonkit · 08-20-2007, 10:43 AM

I quickly replaced my 18-55 kit lens, just wasn't happy with it - lacked contrast & sharpness (maybe mine was a bad copy).

I replaced it with the Sigma 17-70 - my first thoughts were "WOW". From my experience it's a big step up from the kit lens, contrast & sharpness are excellent - I certainly won't be using the kit lens again

simon

rprii · 08-20-2007, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by simonkit

I quickly replaced my 18-55 kit lens, just wasn't happy with it - lacked contrast & sharpness (maybe mine was a bad copy).

I replaced it with the Sigma 17-70 - my first thoughts were "WOW". From my experience it's a bit step up from the kit lens, contrast & sharpness are excellent - I certainly won't be using the kit lens again

simon

Simon:
Glad to hear this . . . I am awaiting the arrival of my 17-70 as I write . . . UPS shows it out for delivery.

I sold the kit lens with my old DS . . . need the 17-70 to go between my Pentax 10-17(great lens) and the Bigma . . . from everything I have read, I am fairly confident I will not be disappointed.

vinzer · 08-20-2007, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by rprii

Simon:
Glad to hear this . . . I am awaiting the arrival of my 17-70 as I write . . . UPS shows it out for delivery.

I sold the kit lens with my old DS . . . need the 17-70 to go between my Pentax 10-17(great lens) and the Bigma . . . from everything I have read, I am fairly confident I will not be disappointed.

That's quite an efficient arsenal you have there. The 17-70 entices me more and more.

rprii · 08-20-2007, 09:02 PM

Got the lens this afternoon . . . not a lot of time to play with it but here are some quick samples.

The files named "..._raw_resize.jpg" are PEFs that were converted and resized using, believe it or not, ACDSee . . . no other PP. The other files are straight out of the K10D . . . only PP was a resize by ACDSee.

After I have a better opportunity to spend more time with this combo, i will post some more shots. But, so far, I am impressed by focusing speed, colors and sharpness . . . I think this is a good intermediate addition to my kit.

bart_hickman · 08-20-2007, 11:03 PM

The Sigma 17-70 is MUCH better at macros. Not only is the max magnification quite a bit higher, but the kit lens local contrast starts to deteriorate at close distance and max F/L whereas the 17-70 stays sharp.

Bart

*Bramela* · 08-21-2007, 12:15 AM

A really good lens is the Sigma 17-70. I would highly recommend above the kit lens, without wanting to rubbish them altogether.
Also the lens you are considering is a wonderful macro lens.
Sample: Preying Mantis :

*MShawn63* · 08-21-2007, 10:20 AM

MCJM78, I have the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 myself and love it. I use it for weddings and other indoor events. I was hoping to buy the matching Sigma 70-200 f2.8 but they aren't going to produce it for Pentax. Although Tamron just announced a 70-200 f2.8 that should be available soon.

I'm developing a bad case of LBA.

Shawn