[David&karen]

Well, this is how it all stands: My vendor offered another sample of this lens that will get to me by friday. So this is the 3rd copy. If this one comes close to spec. this is a done deal, if not them I will get in a Sigma 17-50 OS and fill in with Pentax primes. BTW, the reasons for wanting this lens are the following: it is weather sealed, it has a 9 straight aperture blades(makes great sunstars), it starts at 16mm, and it has an ultrasonic drive motor. Frankly it is the only lens that has those qualities, and for me it is really important. YMMV as usual.

David

[DogLover]

Sigma has as many or more QC problems as Pentax. The only lens I've ever had to exchange because of an out-of-the-box problem was a Sigma. But I've had, and still have Sigma's that I'm very pleased with. The point is, ALL brands make lemons.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Sigma has as many or more QC problems as Pentax. The only lens I've ever had to exchange because of an out-of-the-box problem was a Sigma. But I've had, and still have Sigma's that I'm very pleased with. The point is, ALL brands make lemons.

When discussing Sigma's quality, I think a distinction should be made between Sigma lenses of years past, and the newer lenses. The lenses introduced in last few years seem to be a different breed from most of the old Sigma lenses. Of course, their prices have also gone up. So maybe that's an indication that they're changing their business model from being a budget lens maker, to being a viable alternative to 1st party lenses.

And while it's possible that new Sigma lenses could suffer from as many out-of-the-box QC issues as Pentax lenses, at least with the Sigma lens you know it's covered for several years if something does go wrong. With Pentax, you're on your own after one year. And the anecdotal evidence is not in Pentax's favor in regards to SDM longevity.

I realize this is ground that has been well trod on this forum already, but when somebody is asking for help on how to spend their hard-earned money on an expensive lens, I think it's good to have both sides presented.

And not that it means too much, but my personal experience with Sigma lenses has been very good. I've purchased one new Sigma (50-150mm f/2.8 HSM), and four used lenses (17-35mm, 18-125mm, 75-300mm, and 170-500mm). None of them have given me any problems and they have all performed as expected.

[DogLover]

When discussing Sigma's quality, I think a distinction should be made between Sigma lenses of years past, and the newer lenses. The lenses introduced in last few years seem to be a different breed from most of the old Sigma lenses. Of course, their prices have also gone up. So maybe that's an indication that they're changing their business model from being a budget lens maker, to being a viable alternative to 1st party lenses.

And while it's possible that new Sigma lenses could suffer from as many out-of-the-box QC issues as Pentax lenses, at least with the Sigma lens you know it's covered for several years if something does go wrong. With Pentax, you're on your own after one year. And the anecdotal evidence is not in Pentax's favor in regards to SDM longevity.

I realize this is ground that has been well trod on this forum already, but when somebody is asking for help on how to spend their hard-earned money on an expensive lens, I think it's good to have both sides presented.

And not that it means too much, but my personal experience with Sigma lenses has been very good. I've purchased one new Sigma (50-150mm f/2.8 HSM), and four used lenses (17-35mm, 18-125mm, 75-300mm, and 170-500mm). None of them have given me any problems and they have all performed as expected.

I was referring to newer Sigmas. I've never had any older ones. The one that was bad out of the box was the newer 10-20/3.5. As I said, I like Sigmas, but they have problems just like everybody else, and presenting "both sides" was exactly my intent.

[David&karen]

Just so people know that I am not singling Pentax out for abuse: I just returned a Sigma 50-500mm OS last week due to it being soft on the left side of the image, and it not really being all that sharp anywhere in the frame. It really only got better around 400mm at f9, and I measured it at around 350mm effective at that setting, and it still was not that sharp. When it's weight was taken into consideration, Karen asked to try a Pentax 300mm DA* - and that is one heck of a lens! It was perfect out of the box and sharp from f4 on up. Yeah it's a prime, but she can actually carry and use it and the pics are excellent. She also uses a Tamron 70-200 F2.8(an outstanding lens) so that matches well for her pics. Also a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 OS was returned by me because it was horribly misaligned and had this weird field curvature at 70mm. This was 6mo ago. I know weird stuff happens but if the replacement 16-50 DA* is not correct, I have to seriously think of what to do.

David

[Frogfish]

I have the Tamron 17-50/2.8 which is truly an excellent lens for the money but probably gives the nod to Sigma for build quality though I've never had any problems with mine.

However I recently bought the 15 Ltd and it is hardly off my camera at the moment, I use it every opportunity I get ! Landscapes - yep, Cityscapes - yep, full body portraits - yep, street - yep, birding - yep (there it is on that branch in the distance - can't you see it ) ?! I just love the colours from this lens.

Add to that the 21 Ltd, the Zeiss 28/2.8 and maybe the Voigtlander Nokton 58/1.4 (or the 50/1.8 is substantially cheaper and a lovely lens in it's own right) and ..... ah getting carried away here. i think your idea of the 15/21/35 and 18-55 WR is a great kit to cover 15-35+. The Sigma 30/1.4 could be an alternative to the 35.

[Frogfish]

Karen asked to try a Pentax 300mm DA* - and that is one heck of a lens! It was perfect out of the box and sharp from f4 on up. Yeah it's a prime, but she can actually carry and use it and the pics are excellent.

David

A truly gorgeous lens - I love it for birding, psuedo-macro, sport etc. incredibly sharp from f4 up as you say. Works really really well with both the AFA x1.7 and the Tamron x1.4.

[kenyee]

Sigma has as many or more QC problems as Pentax.

3 Sigma 17-70's returned for me...decentering issues. Finally got a good one.
3 Tamron 28-75's returned for BF/FF issues. Gave up hoping the sigma 24-70 would be good but the reviews have sucked so far.

[JHD]

I scarcely read/see reports of problems with third party lenses here; by contrast there seems to be never ending fountain of flawed Pentax lenses. No wonder Pentax does not match the warranty of Sigma and Tamron.

[DogLover]

I scarcely read/see reports of problems with third party lenses here; by contrast there seems to be never ending fountain of flawed Pentax lenses. No wonder Pentax does not match the warranty of Sigma and Tamron.

Well, let's see....whats the name of this site now? And you say you read more about Pentax gear here than other brands? Huh.....weird.

[Blue]

I scarcely read/see reports of problems with third party lenses here; by contrast there seems to be never ending fountain of flawed Pentax lenses. No wonder Pentax does not match the warranty of Sigma and Tamron.

On the flip side of that, Sigma and Tamron have to offer those to compete. Plus, Sigma had a stigma to overcome.

[Frogfish]

On the flip side of that, Sigma and Tamron have to offer those to compete. Plus, Sigma had a stigma to overcome.

That's not really any excuse at all for major manufacturers, purporting to offer higher quality lenses, to offer a pathetic one year guarantee (or 2 or 3 .... in comparison to Sigma/Tamron's warranties).

In my case it has definitely led to lower confidence in Pentax lenses (especially zooms with SDM) and therefore I bought the Tamron 17-50/2.8 over the 16-50 and the Sigma 50-150/2.8 over the 50-135 specifically because of the issues and the fact Pentax doesn't stand behind their lenses, no matter how good they are optically or if superior to their Sigma/Tamron comparables (and for each lens there is a strong case against them being superior at all).

[Blue]

That's not really any excuse at all for major manufacturers, purporting to offer higher quality lenses, to offer a pathetic one year guarantee (or 2 or 3 .... in comparison to Sigma/Tamron's warranties).

In my case it has definitely led to lower confidence in Pentax lenses (especially zooms with SDM) and therefore I bought the Tamron 17-50/2.8 over the 16-50 and the Sigma 50-150/2.8 over the 50-135 specifically because of the issues and the fact Pentax doesn't stand behind their lenses, no matter how good they are optically or if superior to their Sigma/Tamron comparables (and for each lens there is a strong case against them being superior at all).

I did not say it was an excuse. If you have seen any post I have ever made on the subject, you wouldn't have made any assumptions. I strongly think Pentax should put 3 year warranties minimum on their DA* lenses as well as the LTD series ones. However, just because Sigma has a long warranty in and of itself doesn't make them a superior product. They have some excellent lenses and some not so excellent lenses and also have had some qc issues of and on. I was alluding to the Sigma Stigma that was so bad at one point it led to the longer warranties in and effort to over come those. I have owned 3 sigma lenses and had no regrets over them. I still own 1. They weren't cheap lenses however and were also full frame compatible. 15-30, 20-40/2.8 and the one I still have is the 105/2.8 EX DG. The remaining Sigma lens I will be selling only because I got the 100 WR 2 months ago.

Anyone that think Sigma lenses as a whole are the cat's tail, I strongly recommend they sell out and buy a Sigma dSLR and run Sigma lenses. I personally am not into Pentax gear for the purpose of running Sigma glass. Tamron is just a zoom company as far as Pentax goes in reference to K-mount with exception of the 90mm. That rules them out for me since I have only 1 af zoom, the 18-55 WR, in a large part due to the cost of the 16-50 and the SDM and decentering issues it has had although I thought the latter had been fixed.

Edit: The length of Sigma's warranty depends on the Country and the grade of the lens.

[wlachan]

I personally am not into Pentax gear for the purpose of running Sigma glass.

Afraid so. Also, the length of warranty doesn't translate into confidence. Tight QC and decent built quality do.

[Blue]

Afraid so. Also, the length of warranty doesn't translate into confidence. Tight QC and decent built quality do.

By just quoting that sentence, you took what I said way out of context. You completely ignored the part where I said I think Pentax should have at least a 3 year warranty on DA* glass and LTD series lenses. I also said that for people that are all into Sigma glass, they may as well run Sigma bodies. But to address, your comment, No, I am not into Pentax bodies to run Stigma glass. I have only owned 3 ever and am down to the 105 EX DG which is one of the best they ever made for the K mount with exception of the 180/3.5 macro. There are some good sigma lenses but the warranty isn't what makes them good. They also have some dogs. All that said, the majority of my AF lenses are Pentax (95%). The majority of my manual focus lenses are Pentax (75%), and the majority of my m42 lenses are Asahi Optical (80%).

Edit: In fact, I think the DA* lenses should have a 5 year warranty and the LTD series should have a 3 year warranty.