Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-28-2008, 12:26 AM   #16
edl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 457
I have the 18-50 Sigma macro version, it's a very nice lens. I'd highly recommend it, although you may also want to check out the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as that's also a nice lens.

Skip the non-macro Sigma, that's an older design that doesn't perform as well.

I'd also consider the Tamron 28-75 in case you want a bit more reach for your wedding gig.

03-28-2008, 08:29 AM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mount Shasta
Posts: 185
Gadget Guy

You're right. I should have been more specific in what I wanted to say. I just didn't want the potential buyer to have unrealistic expectations, as I did, for this lens. It is not a prime with zoom and requires a lot of dial work to get it to perform in low light. If I had to it over again, I would by primes for the zoom range.
03-28-2008, 08:57 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Outside of Philly
Posts: 1,564
What do you mean by "a lot of dial work to get it to perform in low light." ?
Av mode, open up aperture to f/2.8, raise ISO if shutter speed isn't fast enough. How is that any more "dial work" than using a fast prime?

I agree with your unrealistic expectations, most folks think f/2.8 will solve all their low light problems, but they're wrong

An f/2.8 zoom is what it is, an f/2.8 zoom. An f/1.4 prime it is not
03-28-2008, 05:46 PM   #19
Junior Member
dmadden's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: jamaica
Posts: 39
I have the older 18-50mm without the macro and i have no idea what those guys are talking about performance wise. Its sharp sharp sharp and is dead on all the time. It's basically fused to my pentax. No vignetting and no soft spots wide open. Except some softness at 2.8 @18 (which applies to basically any lens in that bracket) .
If i had to do it again, i'd buy it or the new version 100 times before i'd risk going for the pentax 16-50mm (with it's mountain of problems).

03-28-2008, 11:49 PM   #20
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 21
Hi!

About Tamron 17-50, I would check examples for the bokeh area. It seems very harsh. It works well with landscapes where there should be no out of focus areas, but I wouldn't recommend that lens for wedding shooting (as a most pleasing bokeh would be welcome in this use). So, I think there is no direct alternative for Sigma. I know, there are people using Tamron for wedding shooting, as I've seen from internet galleries, but doubt about it being the most logical choice.

-Veijo-
03-29-2008, 09:25 AM   #21
Veteran Member
aegisphan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 815
I just bought the 16-50 from Amazon. So far, I like the result: center is sharp, corner is just bit softer. I do see that the left corners seem to have more problem than the right ones. I will post in the database until i have more extensive tests.
04-12-2008, 10:04 PM   #22
Senior Member
Cedar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas Hillcountry
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 102
QuoteOriginally posted by bdann Quote
I logged on today to ask about the same lens!
Anyone know how the Sigma compares to the Pentax 16-50 f2.8?
I too would love to hear experienced thoughts on the Sigma 18-50mm VS Pentax 16-50mm.

--------------

I have the Sigma, and have found it very useful for indoor work.

Here are two photos I took "playing" with the lens when it arrived, but please don't dismiss the lens due to the "photographer". :-)

They are both taken as Jpegs in a normally lit kitchen with a K100d, uncropped, and no PP. Click on either for the 100% 2MB image.


1/6s f/2.8 ISO 400 K100D Sigma 18-50mm (click for full size)


1s f/8 ISO 400 K100D Sigma 18-50mm (click for full size)

I've been happy with my purchase, and a good friend who borrowed it for a week long conference shoot is now saving for one.

That said... I too am interested hearing comparisons between it and the Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8.

An extra 2mm at the wide end would be very nice, and now (rather than later) would be a good time to see if my friend is interested in a used Sigma 18-50. :-)

Last edited by Cedar; 04-17-2008 at 01:38 PM. Reason: Figured out how to add 'click' links to original images
04-12-2008, 10:05 PM   #23
Senior Member
Cedar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas Hillcountry
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 102
QuoteOriginally posted by aegisphan Quote
I just bought the 16-50 from Amazon. So far, I like the result: center is sharp, corner is just bit softer. I do see that the left corners seem to have more problem than the right ones. I will post in the database until i have more extensive tests.
Looking forward to those sample images (he begs). :-)

04-13-2008, 01:08 AM   #24
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
I've faced the same choice. Bought and returned 2 DA*16-50's with BF issues. Got the non macro Sigma and sold it within days. Comparing these to the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di. The Sigma non macro is an average lens at best and performs about the same or worse than the Pentax 18-55mm. Actually the new v II 18-55 (yup I've tried that as well) is a better lens.

So either get the Sigma macro version, which by all reports is a good lens, or you might want to consider the DA16-45 f4. For the time being, that was my choice, even though it is slower. For the current price and IQ, this lens is very good with almost no owners complaining about it.

I'll get a DA* again when I get a K20D first and hope a good copy arrives at the door.
04-13-2008, 01:42 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nowhere, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 654
I got it and I am statisfied. I think it's performance is really good and the buildquality aswell. You won't be disappointed, I have only heard one or two complain about it, but probably two hundred praise it.

The macro version that is. The other older one I have no clue about.
04-14-2008, 02:47 AM   #26
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Peter Zack Quote
I've faced the same choice. Bought and returned 2 DA*16-50's with BF issues. Got the non macro Sigma and sold it within days. Comparing these to the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di. The Sigma non macro is an average lens at best and performs about the same or worse than the Pentax 18-55mm. Actually the new v II 18-55 (yup I've tried that as well) is a better lens.

So either get the Sigma macro version, which by all reports is a good lens, or you might want to consider the DA16-45 f4. For the time being, that was my choice, even though it is slower. For the current price and IQ, this lens is very good with almost no owners complaining about it.

I'll get a DA* again when I get a K20D first and hope a good copy arrives at the door.
Well, my own experience is quite the opposite. I bought the Sigma 18-50 2.8 non-Macro more than two years ago (when there was no alternative from Pentax in sight) and have never been disappointed. It is sharp, contrast is very good and it is fully usaeable at max. aperture. The reviews I have seen after the release of the second generation with the Macro designation have been less favourable.

The Sigma is my walk-around lens quite as my old FA 28-75 2.8 was during film-times. For available light I have a collection of fast primes, but obviously a capable zoom lens is sometimes quicker to use.

The only thing, which makes me think about getting a Pentax 16-50 now, is its weather sealing. I used the camera during heavy snow fall recently (very wet snow) and the AF stopped working after an hour or so (I could still take photographs in manual focusing mode). As soon as I could wipe the camera dry it worked again flawlessly, though.

From my personal experience I can only recommend the Sigma, non-Macro version.

Ben
04-14-2008, 04:57 AM   #27
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
WellBen, maybe I got a so-so copy but I found the IQ fine, just soft images, even doing careful tripod shots with good light. Everything I've read and reports even on these forums, say that the macro version is the better lens. But I only had one and didn't want to take the chance on another.
04-14-2008, 05:26 AM   #28
Veteran Member
jshurak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 627
QuoteOriginally posted by craig1024 Quote
Just wondering what ayones experience is with this lens. I am thinking of buying one for my first real wedding gig. Any thoughts, concerns?

I was going to buy it for my pentax. I have used it with on a Canon mount though. Its a pretty decent lens. Not too pricey and a big step up from the kit lens. Currently you can get two versions of this lens.

older version

newer version

Popphoto gave the newer version some recognition late last year....or maybe it was early this year...
04-14-2008, 10:14 PM   #29
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,776
QuoteQuote:

I'll be choosing between the Sigma (new macro version) and the Tamron when I see some hands-on reports about the Tammy.
I can't post any links but I did a little Google research a few months back on the Sigma macro vs. non-macro and seem to remember the new macro version as being the way better choice even at 100 bucks more. There were some specific complaints about the earlier version but I just can't remember what they were.
Very few specific complaints - in a year and a half on 2 forums the only one I recall was about a yellowish tint - I've never seen it on my old version, which is pretty sharp, and I like a lot. It is still listed at $279 from Cameta Camera.
04-18-2008, 01:48 AM   #30
Senior Member
Cedar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas Hillcountry
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 102
QuoteOriginally posted by Cedar Quote
I have the Sigma, and have found it very useful for indoor work.

Here are two photos I took "playing" with the lens when it arrived, but please don't dismiss the lens due to the "photographer". :-)

They are both taken as Jpegs in a normally lit kitchen with a K100d, uncropped, and no PP. Click on either for the 100% 2MB image.


1/6s f/2.8 ISO 400 K100D Sigma 18-50mm (click for full size)


1s f/8 ISO 400 K100D Sigma 18-50mm (click for full size)

That said... I too am interested hearing comparisons between it and the Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8.
Update: I had the Flickr permissions were set wrong. You should now be able to access/download the 100% crops. Sorry!

Or can access them (and my other 'test shots') at Lens Check, Lens Check, 123 - a set on Flickr
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, sigma 18-50mm, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thoughts on the Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 jct us101 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 04-11-2010 07:27 AM
My thoughts about DA* 16-50mm sychen Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 10-10-2008 09:35 AM
Thoughts on FA 50mm 1.7 Flaco Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 12-20-2007 08:12 AM
First thoughts on Sigma 24-135 2.8-4.5 filmamigo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 09-30-2007 08:04 PM
Second Thoughts about going Sigma.. FotoPete Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 04-15-2007 08:38 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:38 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top