Any thoughts on the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8?

craig1024 · 03-27-2008, 03:18 AM

Just wondering what ayones experience is with this lens. I am thinking of buying one for my first real wedding gig. Any thoughts, concerns?

Ed in GA · 03-27-2008, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by craig1024

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 don't have one. However, I ran into a guy while on vacation who was shooting with the K10D and had the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 mounted.

After listening to his comments on it, I wanted to run out and get one immediately.

This fellow was a music Professor from near Toccoa, GA and had been using the sigma for shooting a lot of indoor concerts and recitals.

craig1024 · 03-27-2008, 04:24 AM

Cool, thanks. Anybody else?

Gadget_Guy · 03-27-2008, 05:33 AM

I have this lens and I absolutely love it.

It stays on my camera most of the time......

It gathers a lot of light and with the 2.8 I can do some nice DOF shots.

It is fast to focus and the only drawback is that it is heavy... (There is a lot of glass in there)

I would highly reccomend this lens to anyone that asked.

D.

tarsus · 03-27-2008, 06:34 AM

I do not like it, but I am new to the K10D which has very different ways of approaching low light with its modes. After much experimentation, I am able to get decent not great shots. The Pentax 50mm 1.4 blows the Sigma away.

k100d · 03-27-2008, 06:50 AM

for what it's worth, PopPhoto prefers the Sigma to the Tamron 17-50 2.8 although Photozone prefers the Tamron

Gadget_Guy · 03-27-2008, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by tarsus

I do not like it, but I am new to the K10D which has very different ways of approaching low light with its modes. After much experimentation, I am able to get decent not great shots. The Pentax 50mm 1.4 blows the Sigma away.

You are comparing a prime with one focal length to a multi-focal-length lens.

Not talking apples to apples.

D.

craig1024 · 03-27-2008, 10:36 AM

I have the 50mm f/1.4, but I think I need a little bit of a zoom while doing a wedding. I would like to get the 18-50mm f/2.8 and the 50-135mm f/2.8 from Pentax, but I will have to get a few more paying jobs before I do that.

Any thoughts on the new version with Macro compared to the cheaper older version? Amazon has the older for $100 less.

bdann · 03-27-2008, 11:20 AM

I logged on today to ask about the same lens!
Anyone know how the Sigma compares to the Pentax 16-50 f2.8?

Talisman39 · 03-27-2008, 02:01 PM

I just got mine recently and have been impressed by it, it is my walkaround lens now. Build quality is very good, as is image quality. It focuses quite close, not a true macro but good enough for a lot of things. Color and bokeh both look very good as well. Given the QC problems of the 16-50, the Sigma is a safe bet at $420. It doesn't have SDM or weather sealing of course, so if those matter to you then the 16-50 might be a better choice.

It is somewhat heavy, but it is lighter and smaller than the Tamron 17-35 f3.5-5.6 that I used to have, even though it is constant 2.8 and has bigger range, go figure. Plus build and image quality are much better (though that Tamron was only about $250 I think).

You can see some images from my Sigma on my DS here: Zenfolio | Adam Richardson | Sigma 18-50 Macro

I don't think you'll go wrong with it. You might want to wait until more is known about the Tamron 17-50 (I got impatient), but I think they will be in spitting distance of one another.

HTH

Adam

craig1024 · 03-27-2008, 02:26 PM

Hi Adam, thanks for the info. Very nice photos, too. Although the manequins freak me out a little bit! Just kidding.

I have a while before I truely need this lens, so I may check out the Tamron reviews, too. But the older version of the Sigma is $280 right now, and I don't really need Macro(I think).

Anyone know the differences between the old version(non Macro) and the new version? About $100 difference between the two.

Workingdog · 03-27-2008, 03:02 PM

Craig,

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.

mpwild · 03-27-2008, 04:24 PM

I just got this lens 2 weeks ago, took alot of pics over Easter weekend and am very happy with the purchase. Going to be nice this weekend so will get out and shoot some more. Quick focus, very sharp, pleasing bokeh. I love it so far!

joelovotti · 03-27-2008, 06:38 PM

I've only had it a couple months but I did my homework and this lens will do great work for you. The word is that you really should buy the newer version if you want the best performance in both IQ and Macro.

Buy the lens!

This is my cat Chaz with my K10D, 1/30S, f8 using Pentax bounce flash at 18mm.

Talisman39 · 03-27-2008, 10:35 PM

The mannequins are pretty weird aren't they?

The old non-macro version is a pretty different lens, and apparently the image quality is not as good. If you're going to get it, get the new one. Besides, if you're also looking at the Tamron they are the same price.

03-27-2008, 03:18 AM	#1
craig1024 Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Central Indiana Posts: 109	Any thoughts on the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8? Just wondering what ayones experience is with this lens. I am thinking of buying one for my first real wedding gig. Any thoughts, concerns?

03-27-2008, 06:38 PM	#14
joelovotti Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: US Photos: Albums Posts: 393	This is a very good lens (photo included) I've only had it a couple months but I did my homework and this lens will do great work for you. The word is that you really should buy the newer version if you want the best performance in both IQ and Macro. Buy the lens! This is my cat Chaz with my K10D, 1/30S, f8 using Pentax bounce flash at 18mm. Last edited by joelovotti; 12-28-2008 at 09:17 AM.

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

03-27-2008, 03:29 AM	#2
Ed in GA Guest	Originally posted by craig1024 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 don't have one. However, I ran into a guy while on vacation who was shooting with the K10D and had the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 mounted. After listening to his comments on it, I wanted to run out and get one immediately. This fellow was a music Professor from near Toccoa, GA and had been using the sigma for shooting a lot of indoor concerts and recitals.

03-27-2008, 04:24 AM	#3
craig1024 Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Central Indiana Posts: 109 Original Poster	Cool, thanks. Anybody else?

03-27-2008, 05:33 AM	#4
Gadget_Guy Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Burlington, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 374	I have this lens and I absolutely love it. It stays on my camera most of the time...... It gathers a lot of light and with the 2.8 I can do some nice DOF shots. It is fast to focus and the only drawback is that it is heavy... (There is a lot of glass in there) I would highly reccomend this lens to anyone that asked. D.

03-27-2008, 06:34 AM	#5
tarsus Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Mount Shasta Posts: 185	I do not like it, but I am new to the K10D which has very different ways of approaching low light with its modes. After much experimentation, I am able to get decent not great shots. The Pentax 50mm 1.4 blows the Sigma away.

03-27-2008, 06:50 AM	#6
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	for what it's worth, PopPhoto prefers the Sigma to the Tamron 17-50 2.8 although Photozone prefers the Tamron

03-27-2008, 08:36 AM	#7
Gadget_Guy Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Burlington, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 374	Originally posted by tarsus I do not like it, but I am new to the K10D which has very different ways of approaching low light with its modes. After much experimentation, I am able to get decent not great shots. The Pentax 50mm 1.4 blows the Sigma away. You are comparing a prime with one focal length to a multi-focal-length lens. Not talking apples to apples. D.

03-27-2008, 10:36 AM	#8
craig1024 Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Central Indiana Posts: 109 Original Poster	I have the 50mm f/1.4, but I think I need a little bit of a zoom while doing a wedding. I would like to get the 18-50mm f/2.8 and the 50-135mm f/2.8 from Pentax, but I will have to get a few more paying jobs before I do that. Any thoughts on the new version with Macro compared to the cheaper older version? Amazon has the older for $100 less.

03-27-2008, 11:20 AM	#9
bdann Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Rowlett, TX Posts: 61	I logged on today to ask about the same lens! Anyone know how the Sigma compares to the Pentax 16-50 f2.8?

03-27-2008, 02:01 PM	#10
Talisman39 Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Oakland, CA Posts: 31	I just got mine recently and have been impressed by it, it is my walkaround lens now. Build quality is very good, as is image quality. It focuses quite close, not a true macro but good enough for a lot of things. Color and bokeh both look very good as well. Given the QC problems of the 16-50, the Sigma is a safe bet at $420. It doesn't have SDM or weather sealing of course, so if those matter to you then the 16-50 might be a better choice. It is somewhat heavy, but it is lighter and smaller than the Tamron 17-35 f3.5-5.6 that I used to have, even though it is constant 2.8 and has bigger range, go figure. Plus build and image quality are much better (though that Tamron was only about $250 I think). You can see some images from my Sigma on my DS here: Zenfolio \| Adam Richardson \| Sigma 18-50 Macro I don't think you'll go wrong with it. You might want to wait until more is known about the Tamron 17-50 (I got impatient), but I think they will be in spitting distance of one another. HTH Adam

03-27-2008, 02:26 PM	#11
craig1024 Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Central Indiana Posts: 109 Original Poster	Hi Adam, thanks for the info. Very nice photos, too. Although the manequins freak me out a little bit! Just kidding. I have a while before I truely need this lens, so I may check out the Tamron reviews, too. But the older version of the Sigma is $280 right now, and I don't really need Macro(I think). Anyone know the differences between the old version(non Macro) and the new version? About $100 difference between the two.

03-27-2008, 03:02 PM	#12
Workingdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: York, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 736	Craig, 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.

03-27-2008, 04:24 PM	#13
mpwild New Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: mpls,mn Posts: 20	I just got this lens 2 weeks ago, took alot of pics over Easter weekend and am very happy with the purchase. Going to be nice this weekend so will get out and shoot some more. Quick focus, very sharp, pleasing bokeh. I love it so far!

03-27-2008, 10:35 PM	#15
Talisman39 Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Oakland, CA Posts: 31	The mannequins are pretty weird aren't they? The old non-macro version is a pretty different lens, and apparently the image quality is not as good. If you're going to get it, get the new one. Besides, if you're also looking at the Tamron they are the same price.