Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-07-2013, 08:23 AM   #31
Veteran Member
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,638
QuoteOriginally posted by Pheo Quote
At this rate I wonder of the Pentax will be available before the Sigma! Seems quite vapourware at the moment in K mount
Well considering the 20-40 is supposed to be introduced in December, and Sigma has said that the 18-35 k-mount is coming out early next year...

11-07-2013, 08:29 AM   #32
Veteran Member
kent's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lithuania
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 344
Well, step by step i am quitting Pentax and selling the last gear and the buying Canon tools. Today I tried 18-35mm Sigma with my old Canon and I was impressed with sharpness, contrast, premium build quality. Focus wise it is quite fast lens, although focusing is hit or miss sometimes (might be my fault because I had no time to test it properly). Otherwise it is a stunning lens and I cannot imagine buying 20-40 lens even if I stayed with Pentax... Sigma is a real winner here, and my hands are quite strong to hold few grams more. Speed has its cost.
11-07-2013, 08:32 AM   #33
Veteran Member
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,150
I think Pentax should have cancelled the HD DA 20-40mm project as soon as they heard of the Sigma 18-35mm, just to save face.
11-07-2013, 08:46 AM - 1 Like   #34
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by kent Quote
Well, step by step i am quitting Pentax and selling the last gear and the buying Canon tools. Today I tried 18-35mm Sigma with my old Canon and I was impressed with sharpness, contrast, premium build quality. Focus wise it is quite fast lens, although focusing is hit or miss sometimes (might be my fault because I had no time to test it properly). Otherwise it is a stunning lens and I cannot imagine buying 20-40 lens even if I stayed with Pentax... Sigma is a real winner here, and my hands are quite strong to hold few grams more. Speed has its cost.
Some people wander in the Pentax door for the wrong reasons, it's good you're finding your way out.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I think Pentax should have cancelled the HD DA 20-40mm project as soon as they heard of the Sigma 18-35mm, just to save face.
I am having difficulty just finding room for my Sigma 8-16 and 70 macro. To the point that I've ordered an A-50 2.8 to replace the 70 macro in my bag. YOu can only carry so much weight. So while I appreciate the nice IQ these lenses provide, I pretty much ignore commentary from folks who don't carry their gear. With all due respect, it's a different mind set.

I wouldn't go to a hiker forum and start talking about the features of a coleman two burner camp stove and 20 gallon propane tank. But that's what these comments are about.

You're writing off a lens you haven't seen. The simple fact is, you don't appear to be Pentax users for the right reasons. Portability, and compact size and rugged construction are the three features that really stand out in the brand. Thinks outdoors, Pentax does. I had to buy two heavy lenses to understand the advantage. I'll save my weight in the future, for long lenses where it;s necessary. Turning a wide angle lens into a tank, is not the way I think Pentax should go. Especially since Sigma is so god at it.

It becomes an argument between people who appreciate what Pentax is and does, and those who would be more suited to other brands.

I don't need the lens. But I'm not going to judge it before anyone has even seen it or tested it. Saying people have tested the 18-35, is just saying it went into production first. In the grand scheme of lens design and production, first doesn't mean best. Only best means best.

11-07-2013, 09:01 AM   #35
Veteran Member
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,354
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Some people wander in the Pentax door for the wrong reasons, it's good you're finding your way out.



I am having difficulty just finding room for my Sigma 8-16 and 70 macro. To the point that I've ordered an A-50 2.8 to replace the 70 macro in my bag. YOu can only carry so much weight. So while I appreciate the nice IQ these lenses provide, I pretty much ignore commentary from folks who don't carry their gear. With all due respect, it's a different mind set.

I wouldn't go to a hiker forum and start talking about the features of a coleman two burner camp stove and 20 gallon propane tank. But that's what these comments are about.

You're writing off a lens you haven't seen. The simple fact is, you don't appear to be Pentax users for the right reasons. Portability, and compact size and rugged construction are the three features that really stand out in the brand. Thinks outdoors, Pentax does. I had to buy two heavy lenses to understand the advantage. I'll save my weight in the future, for long lenses where it;s necessary. Turning a wide angle lens into a tank, is not the way I think Pentax should go. Especially since Sigma is so god at it.

It becomes an argument between people who appreciate what Pentax is and does, and those who would be more suited to other brands.

I don't need the lens. But I'm not going to judge it before anyone has even seen it or tested it. Saying people have tested the 18-35, is just saying it went into production first. In the grand scheme of lens design and production, first doesn't mean best. Only best means best.
While I agree with what you say for the most part, Ricoh/Pentax just re-released a slew of reconditioned DA Limiteds without WR. If they were to have released those lenses with WR, they really couldve stood out as the "outdoor brand"
11-07-2013, 09:20 AM   #36
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 254
The HDR limited's went up in price quite a bit, they might have been able to justify that more if they made them WR too
11-07-2013, 09:43 AM   #37
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,601
I really would like to wait until I see some images from the limited zoom before castigating it. Honestly, if you look at the DA 15 limited on paper, it is a slow, if wide lens that needs to be shot at f5.6 to 8 to get corner sharpness and it cost 500-ish dollars before the price raises. But it is still a good lens and one that measures up quite nicely for landscapes against Sigmas bigger, faster glass.

I wouldn't pay a thousand dollars for this lens, but I have to think that the price will come down, once Ricoh sees that they won't sell any at this range. At 750 to 800 dollars, it would be a lens that would be under a lot more consideration.

11-07-2013, 10:07 AM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,448
here's sigmas own MTF charts. I can see good image quality, maybe even very good in centers but at f1.8 the edges are going to be atrocious, unless I'm interpreting this wrong. (Green lines are IQ and bottom scale is radius out from center? Anything under 7.5 I consider to be less that Pro quality. Look at the 300 F2.8 or 500 F4.5 and you'll see flat lines at almost 9 for comparison)

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sites/default/files/210-mtf-chart_0.gif

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sites/default/files/210-mtf-chart-2.gif

it strikes me more as a portrait lens, street photography, etc

if the 20-40 has far superior corner to corner IQ, then i would think the target would be landscape photogs. They would truly be apples to oranges lenses then. Plus I personally am not that enamored of either the Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma 18-50. A lot of distortion and both in my experience really drop off after f8. Comparatively, my Sigma 20-40 and the Pentax FA20-35 are quite useable to f16.

I was a little disappointed with the 1k MSRP, so I can understand that dismay. I was thinking $700-800 at most as well and that would have piqued my interest. Now I'm a less intrigued by the new lens
11-07-2013, 10:14 AM   #39
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 161
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The simple fact is, you don't appear to be Pentax users for the right reasons. Portability, and compact size and rugged construction are the three features that really stand out in the brand.
well... The fact is that you're wrong. You dont have to "need" these three aspects to like pentax. For example:
*I do appreciate the build quality, otherwise I would have jumped to a canon 70d by now just on features alone (not to mention more cheaper options of lenses like the sigma 18-35mm already available for canon)
*I do appreciate camera layout of pentax (not on your list, but is a BIGGIE for me and a clear differentiator for pentax brand)
*I don't mind portability. I dont go up and down with 20lbs of gear so is not important for ME. I know it is for other people, but not ME or many people that has said the same.
*I like having WR readily available even on the kit lens (if you have the DA WR of course) for cheap. (in other brands you need top tier products to get WR)

having said that, i do still like pentax and most likely my next camera will be pentax too based on my first two points alone. So I am not sure why you say I (or any other of the members saying that Sigma lens makes more sense) don't like pentax for the right reasons.

In my original post I was asking what is the market for this lens... It seems that hikers might see a benefit for this (for example) especially if you're just taking pictures outdoors.
11-07-2013, 10:17 AM   #40
Veteran Member
Dr_who's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 777
At $1000 I'd think it would be better to buy the DA* 16-50 2.8. Even if it's not sharp wide open you can stop down to 3.5 or 4 like the DA limited zoom and be on par.
11-07-2013, 10:21 AM   #41
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 161
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Dr_who Quote
At $1000 I'd think it would be better to buy the DA* 16-50 2.8. Even if it's not sharp wide open you can stop down to 3.5 or 4 like the DA limited zoom and be on par.
Thats my point...
11-07-2013, 10:21 AM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,448
QuoteOriginally posted by jrcastillo Quote
In my original post I was asking what is the market for this lens... It seems that hikers might see a benefit for this (for example) especially if you're just taking pictures outdoors.
maybe because it matches my outdoor/hiking/landscape/wildlife kit I can see the perfect sense.

My go everywhere set-up is a DA15, Sigma 20-40, FA50 Macro, FA100 Macro, Sigma 100-300 F4, plus filters etc etc

I had the FA20-35 and had to add the DA40 to fill the gap until I went to the Sigma.

This 20-40 aligns perfectly with "My" roadmap and if I wanted to save a extra pound or 2 could possible replace the Sigma.

In my previous post, I surmised the 18-35 was not a landscape lens based on the lack of corner to corner sharpness, so this focal length makes perfect sense for a lot of landscape applications.

Now is it worth 1k to me? Not so sure about that, no matter what the IQ unless it was an f32 or f45 capable lens and diffraction limited, then I think I'd be selling an organ to buy it.
11-07-2013, 10:40 AM   #43
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,744
QuoteOriginally posted by Dr_who Quote
At $1000 I'd think it would be better to buy the DA* 16-50 2.8. Even if it's not sharp wide open you can stop down to 3.5 or 4 like the DA limited zoom and be on par.
That was one of my initial thoughts also. But there is a huge size difference, plus the factor of SDM vs DC motor.

For myself, I've already owned the DA* 16-50 and it really didn't impress me all that much except for it's sweet spots for IQ. I've never owned a Limited lens and have been wanting to try one for some time - I've become an IQ fanatic and have come to love my DA 12-24, DFA 50 2.8, DFA 100 2.8 WR and DA* 60-250. My next natural progression with my lens line up would be to explore the Limiteds now.

With this zoom, in my situation of not owning any Limiteds yet, I think it will fill a need (want?) for me. I look at the prices of the Limiteds separately and this zoom doesn't look so bad. I think it would be a great companion to my DA 12-24 which I just love.
11-07-2013, 10:49 AM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,448
QuoteOriginally posted by calsan Quote
Why would anyone pay more for a laptop, when a desktop is cheaper and faster?
I hope you're being facetious. My GF is an accountant. She lives on her laptop. She travels to clients by day and uses her laptop. She d/l the days work at night to her desktop.
In fact she has 2 laptops, with 2 diff OS because some programs aren't compatible with certain OS.

Owning one does not preclude owning the other, because they serve completely different functions.

In fact, given the strengths of the Sigma and the speculated strengths of the Pentax, with a big enough budget a photographer could make an argument for owning both because I think they serve two completely different functions.

Trying to make a street lens a landscape lens and vice versa is a compromise and will always result in some sort of penalty. Do most of our budgets require a compromise or some sort, yes, so decide what is your style (street or landscape) and go with the lens suited for that. I don't think we'll ever see a 10-70 f1.4 lens with a 55mm filter size and corner to corner Pro IQ that weighs less than a pound and 0 distortion and vignetting on a FF image circle for less than 500. (Do the laws of physics even allow such a thing?)

So we compromise.

Last edited by nomadkng; 11-07-2013 at 10:57 AM.
11-07-2013, 10:58 AM   #45
Veteran Member
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,150
QuoteOriginally posted by Dr_who Quote
At $1000 I'd think it would be better to buy the DA* 16-50 2.8. Even if it's not sharp wide open you can stop down to 3.5 or 4 like the DA limited zoom and be on par.
Exactly! And while the DA* 16-50 isn't small, it's still very easily carried by hikers or climbers. And it's a Pentax too.
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!
comparison, da, f4, hd, k-mount, lens, pentax, pentax lens, sigma, slr lens, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sigma ART 18-35 1.8 and K-30 jrcastillo Pentax K-30 & K-50 36 07-28-2014 09:42 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax D-FA 100mm Macro WR, Samyang 35mm f1.4, Sigma 20-40mm f2.8 DG EX, plus others. Louicio Sold Items 14 12-23-2013 03:02 PM
Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art VS. Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX mythguy9 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 11-08-2013 04:33 AM
Sigma 28mm 1.8 vs F 28mm 2.8 vs DA 35 limited wich is suited for me nirVaan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 03-05-2012 05:21 AM
For Sale - Sold: DA 40mm F2.8 Limited; DA 18-55mm WR Lenses For Sale efkelly Sold Items 3 01-20-2010 01:39 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:31 AM. | 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