Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

ballgofar · 02-24-2008, 07:52 PM

Is it worth the extra $200 to get the DA 16-45? I'm pondering the same dilemma as Heather is; what could I fit between the Tamron 28-75 and something like the Sigma 10-20 (if that gap really does need to be filled...does it?).

The Pentax, while being 1mm wider and a bit longer, is also slower at the focal lengths at which I would likely use it, in addition to being more expensive. Is there anyone else with experience (or who knows about others' experiences) with this Sigma, and possibly could give an opinion on the image quality? Because for me, if there really is not much of a difference, the $200 is not worth it.

Or maybe there are some other solutions? Perhaps the Tamron 10-24 when it comes out would be better suited to that wide-angle slot? Does anyone have any information about the projected price or release date of that?

**mike.hiran** · 03-08-2008, 11:59 PM

I've had this lens for a few days now and am starting to convert the images to jpg. So far I am impressed, but keep in mind I don't have a lot of experience w/ photography.

These images have been post processed w/ some adjustments (not major in my opinion) made to exposure and sharpness.

ballgofar · 03-09-2008, 08:28 PM

Vagrant, those are with the Sigma 17-35, right? Looks nice! Maybe this lens is a good choice after all.

**mike.hiran** · 03-09-2008, 10:39 PM

yes, those pictures were with the sigma 17-35. I chose these pictures to post since there seemed to be quite a bit more sharpness and detail than the kit lens which I took pictures with at the same location the day before. All in all, I'm quite pleased with this lens especially for the price I got it off of Amazon for.

the exif f/ pic #1:
Camera: Pentax K10D
Exposure: 0.006 sec (1/160)
Aperture: f/8
Focal Length: 22 mm
ISO Speed: 200
Exposure Bias: 3/10 EV
Flash: Flash did not fire

and for pic #2:
Camera: Pentax K10D
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture: f/4
Focal Length: 17 mm
ISO Speed: 200
Exposure Bias: 3/10 EV

octavmandru · 02-14-2009, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by barbosas

But it doesn't have aperture ring, so it will not work with older bodies, like MX, ME,etc..

Correct?

Incorrect!
On Pentax mount it has aperture ring.
On my copy, the zoom ring is quite stiff. Also the focus ring.(could be because of the short stoke).
I tested a bit and looks ok. Pitty it has no HSM, but could be also good, sine people had bad experience with it (broken).

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8 EX DG	Ogion	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	10-14-2010 10:15 AM
Anyone using the Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4.0 zoom?	joeyc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	08-16-2009 12:56 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX DG	BAB	Sold Items	0	10-30-2008 05:00 PM

02-24-2008, 07:52 PM	#16
ballgofar Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 87	Is it worth the extra $200 to get the DA 16-45? I'm pondering the same dilemma as Heather is; what could I fit between the Tamron 28-75 and something like the Sigma 10-20 (if that gap really does need to be filled...does it?). The Pentax, while being 1mm wider and a bit longer, is also slower at the focal lengths at which I would likely use it, in addition to being more expensive. Is there anyone else with experience (or who knows about others' experiences) with this Sigma, and possibly could give an opinion on the image quality? Because for me, if there really is not much of a difference, the $200 is not worth it. Or maybe there are some other solutions? Perhaps the Tamron 10-24 when it comes out would be better suited to that wide-angle slot? Does anyone have any information about the projected price or release date of that?

03-08-2008, 11:59 PM	#17
mike.hiran Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: portland Photos: Albums Posts: 1,491	I've had this lens for a few days now and am starting to convert the images to jpg. So far I am impressed, but keep in mind I don't have a lot of experience w/ photography. These images have been post processed w/ some adjustments (not major in my opinion) made to exposure and sharpness.

03-09-2008, 08:28 PM	#18
ballgofar Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 87	Vagrant, those are with the Sigma 17-35, right? Looks nice! Maybe this lens is a good choice after all.

03-09-2008, 10:39 PM	#19
mike.hiran Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: portland Photos: Albums Posts: 1,491	yes, those pictures were with the sigma 17-35. I chose these pictures to post since there seemed to be quite a bit more sharpness and detail than the kit lens which I took pictures with at the same location the day before. All in all, I'm quite pleased with this lens especially for the price I got it off of Amazon for. the exif f/ pic #1: Camera: Pentax K10D Exposure: 0.006 sec (1/160) Aperture: f/8 Focal Length: 22 mm ISO Speed: 200 Exposure Bias: 3/10 EV Flash: Flash did not fire and for pic #2: Camera: Pentax K10D Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500) Aperture: f/4 Focal Length: 17 mm ISO Speed: 200 Exposure Bias: 3/10 EV

02-14-2009, 08:23 AM	#20
octavmandru Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: somewhere around Posts: 615	Originally posted by barbosas But it doesn't have aperture ring, so it will not work with older bodies, like MX, ME,etc.. Correct? Incorrect! On Pentax mount it has aperture ring. On my copy, the zoom ring is quite stiff. Also the focus ring.(could be because of the short stoke). I tested a bit and looks ok. Pitty it has no HSM, but could be also good, sine people had bad experience with it (broken).

Sigma 17-35mm vs. 21/3.2

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!