Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-14-2013, 11:47 AM   #1
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Clear Lake, IA
Posts: 64
Sigma 17-50mm or 17-70mm?

Fall Greetings to Everyone,

I have 2 cameras---- k7 and k01. My lenses: F 35-70, F 70-210, XS 40, 30 F1.4, F4 15. 16-45 F4, & 60-250 F4. My wife uses K01 with 16-45 a lot. The 16-45 is a sharp lens. I am looking to add one other lens to go with k7, this would be mostly walk around lens. I realize that 35-70 fills gap and that the 40 is good walk around, but limiting.

I am considering one of 2 zooms by Sigma: 17-70 contemporary or 17-50 F2.8. There is not much price difference in the lenses with $100 discount on the F2.8.

What do you think? Is some other lens that I should consider?

Thanks

10-14-2013, 12:02 PM   #2
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,775
I'd also throw the 18-135 into that consideration if any weather resistance is attractive to you. It's pretty nice as a walkaround but it is a bit soft at the long end. Beyond that, I'd think you have everything but the walkaround zoom covered pretty well. Unless you're into macro, but it doesn't seem like you are.

The 18-135 is probably the quickest focusing lens I have - well, except for the 10-17 fisheye...but that's an unfair comparison.
10-14-2013, 12:03 PM   #3
Site Supporter
K57XR's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 823
Between the two Sigmas you mentioned I would vote for the 17-70 contemporary. If I didn't have the 18-135WR I would've gotten this lens. Out of the different versions of Sigma 17-70s it seems the latest "Contemporary" version is the best amongst all of them - at least from the reviews I came across. For general walk-around I would rather have the extra 20mm vs. constant 2.8. For that purpose I'd use a prime - YMMV.
10-14-2013, 12:30 PM   #4
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 21
All three lenses mentioned; 18-70, 18-50 f2.8 and 18-135 have their places. I carry the 18-135 as my standard walk around on my K-5IIs. Both are weatherproof and have a nice balance. Speed of the lens is a bit challenging. Thank goodness I have no objection shooting at 800 ISO. The added reach of the 135mm (agree a little soft but very acceptable) sure comes in handy for isolating subjects or reaching out for nature shots. The 18-50 f2.8 takes over when I head out at night. Has fast, snappy focusing even at low light. Even though the Pentax has built in shake reduction I find the added speed of the 18-50 is very handy for working in lower light. Is a bit "beefy" as far as weight but that's the price you pay for fast aperture and really great light transmission. May be up for sale though when Sigma releases the 18-35mm f1.8 for Pentax. Wicked sharp and even though big will replace the three f1.8's I carry now.
That leaves the 18-70. I have the pre-"Contemporary" version. Even thought he other two get more attention it is still just a really nice, light, sharp lens. If neither of the key features (f2.8 or reach out to 135mm) are critical I would recommend the contemporary 18-70.

10-15-2013, 12:02 PM   #5
Veteran Member
cbope's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 664
QuoteOriginally posted by K57XR Quote
Between the two Sigmas you mentioned I would vote for the 17-70 contemporary. If I didn't have the 18-135WR I would've gotten this lens. Out of the different versions of Sigma 17-70s it seems the latest "Contemporary" version is the best amongst all of them - at least from the reviews I came across. For general walk-around I would rather have the extra 20mm vs. constant 2.8. For that purpose I'd use a prime - YMMV.
The Lenstip reviews of both Sigma's would contradict that. The 17-50 EX has better sharpness across the whole frame compared to the 17-70 C. In the center they are fairly close. Also read the summary at the end of each review, the author is clearly more impressed with the 17-50 EX and felt that the 17-70 C version actually performed worse than its predecessor.

I'm not trying to say the 17-70 C is a bad lens, it's not, but saying it's better than the 17-50 EX is misleading.

FWIW, I've looked at many reviews of both Sigma's and I'm buying the 17-50 EX.
10-15-2013, 01:37 PM   #6
Site Supporter
K57XR's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 823
QuoteOriginally posted by cbope Quote
The Lenstip reviews of both Sigma's would contradict that. The 17-50 EX has better sharpness across the whole frame compared to the 17-70 C. In the center they are fairly close. Also read the summary at the end of each review, the author is clearly more impressed with the 17-50 EX and felt that the 17-70 C version actually performed worse than its predecessor.

I'm not trying to say the 17-70 C is a bad lens, it's not, but saying it's better than the 17-50 EX is misleading.

FWIW, I've looked at many reviews of both Sigma's and I'm buying the 17-50 EX.
My apologies for the misleading reply but I wasn’t actually commenting on the 17-50 f.28 EX at all. I was referring to the different versions of Sigma 17-70mm – 2 or 3 I believe? The “C” is supposedly the best one out all of them (17-70s). I too have read the reviews for the 17-50 f2.8 EX and it is quite impressive and considered it for myself – just out of my price range. However, for general walk around, I would still opt for a slower but wider range than a faster but shorter lens – that’s just me.
10-15-2013, 02:01 PM   #7
Senior Member
mbukal's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: zagreb
Posts: 171
I tried to Sigma 17-70/2.8-4,5 and 17-70/2.8-4 and finally bought the a little used Pentax DA 17-70/4, sigma can not be compared with the quality color and quality sharpness throughout the range with Pentax, my recommendation is for Pentax DA 17-70/4
10-15-2013, 10:10 PM   #8
Veteran Member
cbope's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 664
QuoteOriginally posted by K57XR Quote
My apologies for the misleading reply but I wasn’t actually commenting on the 17-50 f.28 EX at all. I was referring to the different versions of Sigma 17-70mm – 2 or 3 I believe? The “C” is supposedly the best one out all of them (17-70s). I too have read the reviews for the 17-50 f2.8 EX and it is quite impressive and considered it for myself – just out of my price range. However, for general walk around, I would still opt for a slower but wider range than a faster but shorter lens – that’s just me.
My misunderstanding then.

Actually the 17-50 f/2.8 EX is currently cheaper than the 17-70 C here, after a major price drop on the EX model. EX was ~570€ and the 17-70 C is 440€, but the EX is now 399€. So the C ends up costing 10% more with the advantage being the extra 20mm reach and a disadvantage of a variable aperture.

10-16-2013, 08:36 AM   #9
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
You're using K-7, which has a pretty decent MP count. I recommend the 17-50. You can always crop to obtain 70mm, but you can't open a lens wider than its max aperture.

K-7's ISO performance is already low by today's standard so every bit of aperture opening helps.

Feel free to ignore my advice if you find you never have to use ISO 3200 on the K-7
10-17-2013, 05:55 PM   #10
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Clear Lake, IA
Posts: 64
Original Poster
Andi,

Thank you, I think you are correct. I am going to go with the F2.8 17-50. I will keep the 16-45 F4 on the K-01. We have been very pleased with that lens.

Since K-7 does struggle with grain above 800, best I go with larger aperture.

Appreciate the advice.


Larry
www.colorthewind.org
10-17-2013, 06:31 PM   #11
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by kiteman Quote
Andi,

Thank you, I think you are correct. I am going to go with the F2.8 17-50. I will keep the 16-45 F4 on the K-01. We have been very pleased with that lens.

Since K-7 does struggle with grain above 800, best I go with larger aperture.

Appreciate the advice.


Larry
www.colorthewind.org
Glad that helps larry Many people are happy with the 17-50 and I hope you'll be one of them too.

Pics in your site look like crazy fun, by the way
10-18-2013, 06:12 PM   #12
Site Supporter
slip's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,530
I just picked up the Sigma 17-50 2.8 ex hsm fld and this lens rocks!
It is very sharp wide open and produces well saturated images.
I am going to Cuba at the end of October and this lens likely will be glued on my K5IIS
I also have the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 but really miss the 17-28mm range more than I realized

Thanks

Randy
10-20-2013, 06:57 AM   #13
Veteran Member
cbope's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 664
I just ordered my 17-50 f/2.8 last night, unfortunately it was out of stock so it will be a few weeks before I get it. Can't wait to shoot with it!


10-20-2013, 10:34 AM   #14
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2
My 17-70 C is very good except for the auto-focus issue. It 's very sharp cross the frame, produces good color, and nearly no CA or vignetting. However, mine cannot be focus accurately even after using fine adjustment (because different focal length needs different offset). I'm deciding whether to return it or not.
DXOMark tells me that 17-50 is good at 17mm / 50mm, while 17-70 C is best in the middle, like 28mm. I think if the budget is enough, 17-50 + FA31 + DA70 may make an extremely ideal combination. Otherwise simply a cheap 17-70 C is enough in most cases.
PS: 17-70 C looks good on my K-5, but the appearance of 17-50 seems odd to me.
10-24-2013, 12:42 PM   #15
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 254
The new Sigma 17-70mm is nicer build wise, but a bit worse at the wide end than the previous version. The second version is the one to get IMO it also has slightly closer focus distance than the new version.
17-50mm f2.8 is quite good but needs stopping down to get improved edge performance, and it's not really 17mm at the wide end (more like 18mm)
Both are decent enough lenses but I prefer f2.8 myself across the range
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!
f2.8, f4, k-mount, k01, k7, lens, lenses, pentax lens, sigma, sigma 17-50mm, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Replacing kit lens: Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 or Tamron 17-50mm 2.8? kari Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 10-03-2010 11:57 AM
Pentax 17-70mm f/4 or Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 or sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4? shang Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 05-24-2010 05:30 AM
17-70mm or 17-50mm? HeavyD Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 04-06-2010 01:07 AM
What to choose? Pentax DA 17-70mm or Tamron 17-50mm. NorthPentax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 01-30-2009 12:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:59 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