Read more..
Find your perfect Lens
Sigma's new 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OS HSM II lens has just been made available in the Pentax mount! It's arrived at retailers together with a very welcome $100 instant rebate, reducing its final price to just $399. With the new high prices for Pentax brand lenses, this seems like a particularly good deal!
This 18-200mm is an all-around super zoom lens, and the new "mark 2" version features improved optics compared to the old 18-200mm, as well as Sigma's HSM system for fast, quiet, and (unlike Pentax SDM) reliable autofocus. The Pentax version of the lens does not have in-lens OS (optical stabilization), as it is rendered redundant by in-body SR.
The new lens has already been added to our lens database, where you can post your own review of the lens sound you decide to get it.
Even though I don't use Sigma lenses anymore (because I prefer what Pentax and Tokina offer) this is very good news. I hope it is a sign of renewed Pentax K-mount support in future Sigma lenses. I believe this third-party lens support is vital to Pentax' future - maybe even more now, since Pentax has raised their own lens prices.
Very good Sigma. 1 year ago bought the old 18-200mm for my K-r to used on emergencies when I can only carry one lens. At the begining I didn´t consider it a serius lens. But with time I learn to use it and that from f8 to f12 is sharp as a top prime. Because camera high ISO capability I can get very good results from the Sigma. Not for nothing Pentax have one of this FL lens on their recently road map.
This is good news indeed! At this moment there is no new good LIGHT&COMPACT superzoom for pentax and hopes this class can fill the cap mentioned. What is weight for pentax version? If there is no OS in penta version maybe they did leave OS lenses out and weight is reduced then...
I just bought a Tamron 18-250mm over the winter. I wonder if I'm going to be missing out on something?
Does it have quick shift focus? .-.-.
This is good news for Pentax! I can see alot of retailers paring this lens with entry level bodies as it replicates the "10x" zoom of a lot of travel compacts. Along with the DA 35 2.4 and newer pending DA50 1.8 these are great value starter lenses to get people into Pentax!
As for me if the IQ at F8 is near the previous 18-250 lenses will be worth it with HSM.
I'm not interested in a superzoom, but Sigma should be applauded for releasing new lenses in K-mount. Especially since Tamron has seeming stopped supporting Pentax.
My last three lens purchases have been the Sigma 10-20mm, 30mm 1.4, and the 150-500mm HSM, and I soon hope to add the Sigma 85mm 1.4 to my kit. As long as Sigma keeps supporting Pentax with good lenses, I will keep supporting them.
Seems convenient for indoor use if one has a good flash system, maybe bounce the flash off the ceiling if possible. Other than this and for travel or for very tight budgets (or all of the above!), it will be important to see the test results. Looking forward to any measurements as well as anecdotal stories compared to the older model. It would seem difficult to use ANY superzoom in dark situations....
This seems like a really good deal. Hmm. I could sell my 18-135 and 55-300 and use this instead. Miss the weather sealing on the one though. But I can't imagine it rivals the DA 55-300 at the long end. One could easily improve on the 18-135 at the long end.
I like fast lenses, but even my 21 and 15 Ltds are slower than 2.8. You don't see too many people complaining about those. I picked up a Quantaray/Tamron 70-300 variable aperture just because it was cheap, and I wasn't expecting much. But for outdoor use, it works great. My walkaround lens is the 18-135 variable. I will use the aforementioned primes, or my 31 or DA*55, only provided that I know what I am going to shoot, or where I am going in advance. Or, I am just guessing and I know I want to take a risk. Otherwise, superzooms have a place in life, and the 18-200 versions are always variable aperture. Most users would rarely use 200 mm indoors. I'm sure this will attract flames but, this is not really the intended use for a superzoom.
Sorry for the typos. Typing that out on my phone was hard. I meant between f2. And f3 and also I meant to say that constant aperture zooms range around a grand.
@kenez: You can't have it all. Fast glass is pricey. For indoors slap on a 28 or a 50 for headshots and call it a day. If you really need the focal length, get an 85 and a 135. You can do a lot with primes. Most people didn't even. Use zooms all that often until the 80s. Primes teach you how to compose better, since you can just zoom out distracting elements. If I'm inside and not using flash even 2.8 is kind of slow. As long as I can get within w and 3 I'm pretty good. I agree that. 5.6 is too slow for low light. In such situations I usually go up to iso1600 and live with the noise. Some shots are better than none. An f2.8 constant zoom you about a grand. This lens is $400. Do the math. A lot of zooms with constant aperture compromise and are f4. Its no secret. That fast zooms are extremely complex to design and manufacture. The 3-5.6 range has long been a standard for a reason. Like someone else said, spend the money or crank your isos. Also learn how to shoot. I can get fairly sharp 1/2-1/8 second shots with some bracing with a wide to normal lens. Low bursts help too. My lower limit with a big heavy zoom is more like 1/100.
@kenez: ... thats's life. If you want long reach with a wide F-stop, you'll need to get one of those really expensive f/2.8 telephotos. No other way around it. It's what sports photographers use, it's what wildlife photographers use. The next best thing is to get a camera with low noise. Crank up your ISO and suck it up.
I wonder who can use these lenses at the long end, where the F falls under 6. This is terrible. Since I got the Sigma superwide II @ 24 mm, I'm rarely using the 18-55 because of its high f-stops. Granted, I'm not using the Sigma always totally open, but it is very hard to use a lens, which is rated 3.5 at the start and over 5 at the long end in low light, i.e., inside a building where there the light is always short. Of course I have a flash light, but that isn't always a substitute for low light.
What is your opinion about lenses that have worse max aperture than 2.8? I think this is the minimum, and these super zooms are like a toy: first interesting, then it is getting unexcited due to the strong limitation in light...