[PBandJ]

With EVERY shot I try on the K01, I get exactly 3 clicks of the HSM motor and then it stops.

oh... :-( I don't have the HSM version. send it to me and I'll test if for you!

[post_eos]

My copy has a hard time locking focus between 50-70mm on my K5. It doesn't focus at all on my new K-01. The photos are quite sharp and lovely otherwise.

I have what I guess is the 3rd version. Has HSM, does not have OS. It hunts quite often on my K10D. It's fine on my K-01. It doesn't auto focus at all on my Q

[chromo]

OK thanks guys.
I think overall reviews tell me to try something else.

[sTi]

BTW, there are examples from the new Sigma's 17 - 70mm at lenstip.com.

A.

Hmm, I find those sample pictures (Sigma C 17-70 mm f/2.8-4.0 DC Macro OS HSM - sample images - Lenstip.com ) pretty dull and lacking in color & contrast. Sharpness is nothing to write home about either. I was seriously considering the new "contemporary" 17-70 Sigma model as an alternative to the DA 17-70 I own, but judging from the pics I must conclude that the Pentax would probably have done this better... But maybe it's just the (lack of) postprocessing in the sample pics...

[arv]

Yes, it looked like that for me also, however bad contrast might be because of dull weather. Overall, lenstip.com knows, how to make the nice lens look bad (here I refer to FA ltd's or Nikkor AF-S 35mm f1.4).

A.

[bdery]

Hmm, I find those sample pictures (Sigma C 17-70 mm f/2.8-4.0 DC Macro OS HSM - sample images - Lenstip.com ) pretty dull and lacking in color & contrast. Sharpness is nothing to write home about either. I was seriously considering the new "contemporary" 17-70 Sigma model as an alternative to the DA 17-70 I own, but judging from the pics I must conclude that the Pentax would probably have done this better... But maybe it's just the (lack of) postprocessing in the sample pics...

My experience with the Pentax and two first versions from Sigma show that in real life it's hard to tell them apart. The advantage of the Sigma are close focusing and a faster wide aperture, apart from that they're quite similar.

[sTi]

My experience with the Pentax and two first versions from Sigma show that in real life it's hard to tell them apart. The advantage of the Sigma are close focusing and a faster wide aperture, apart from that they're quite similar.

Thanks for sharing your experience. In fact I am completely satisfied with the performance of the Pentax 17-70, it's just that the Sigma announcement of their new "C" version (sporting multiple aspherical, low dispersion and FLD flourite elements) made me curious whether it might be even better. So I guess it's just good marketing

[bdery]

Thanks for sharing your experience. In fact I am completely satisfied with the performance of the Pentax 17-70, it's just that the Sigma announcement of their new "C" version (sporting multiple aspherical, low dispersion and FLD flourite elements) made me curious whether it might be even better. So I guess it's just good marketing

When I wrote the review of the two Sigma and the Pentax, I concluded that I actually rpefered the first version of the Sigma, mainly because it is smaller and has better close focusing. The newest version (C, or version 3) is about the size of version 1, and is supposed to be similar in terms of close focusing. So it should be the best of both worlds, gaining the HSM and faster aperture at tele of v2. I doubt they degraded the optical performances in a significant way (optical comparisons of v1 and v2 showed no clear difference, sample variation probably amounting to the minimal advantage of the v1).

In short, optically it's really splitting hairs. It's really the spec sheet which differenciates these lenses. If the Pentax was weather sealed, for instance, it would become a very compelling option.

[seventysixersfan]

Just came across this blog post which offers an early review of the new Contemporary version of the Sigma 17-70:

Unexpected Access with Sigma 17-70mm 2013 Edition | Shutter Journey (SGP)

[PBandJ]

Just came across this blog post which offers an early review of the new Contemporary version of the Sigma 17-70:

Unexpected Access with Sigma 17-70mm 2013 Edition | Shutter Journey (SGP)

Nice read, but i'd like to see comparisons to the older versions to see how iq has improved, if it has.

[arv]

Lenstip.com posted the review (optyczne.pl). The short conclusion - a little less, for a little more.

[macTak]

Lenstip.com posted the review (optyczne.pl). The short conclusion - a little less, for a little more.

Intersting; DxoMark had found improved optical quality as compared to v2.

[arv]

Intersting; DxoMark had found improved optical quality as compared to v2.

I don't get DXO's new rating system, but looking at sharpness/field maps, new 17mm f5.6 looks worst of all three versions. That was noticed in Lenstip review, so it's not sample variation. Improved border performance at 50 - 70mm most probably was more important to DXO, and not so relevant for lenstip.com. Thus results are similar, but interpretations quite different. I'd support opinion of lenstip.com, that border performance at 17 mm is more imoprtant than at 70mm.

A.

[seventysixersfan]

Here's another new review of the Sigma 17-70 contemporary zoom lens, from f-stoppers:
Fstoppers Reviews the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 Contemporary Lens | Fstoppers

[Tri_BK]

Nice read, but i'd like to see comparisons to the older versions to see how iq has improved, if it has.

the portrait photos in that link are not sharp! I wonder if they represent the lens sharpness!?