Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-09-2008, 07:25 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
It's going to be a kit lens at some point. Competes w/ the Nikon 18-70 which was the kit lens for the D200.

That said, from reviews, it seems the Sigma is sharper though it'll be noisier w/o SDM. I like the warmer color rendition of the Sigma better as well and after I got a good copy, I'm pretty happy with it.
A 17-70 is too slow for weddings...

06-09-2008, 07:35 AM   #17
Veteran Member
gkopeliadis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ATHENS, GREECE
Posts: 311
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I anticipate better coatings, better flare resistance, better contrast, better build quality, better sharpness and better performance than the Stigma.
WOW! Quite absolute you are. I find real (lens) world a little bit more complicated.
06-09-2008, 09:17 AM   #18
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,158
QuoteOriginally posted by gkopeliadis Quote
WOW! Quite absolute you are. I find real (lens) world a little bit more complicated.
I look at the number of reported problems with Stigma equipment over the years, problems with lenses not transmitting information to the camera, flash units that won't talk to the camera, major QC issues and build quality issues, problems with poor flare resistance, etc, and then I look at the number of similar problems I hear about from Pentax, which to date have involved one lens (16-50/2.8) that seems to have a fairly fatal flaw in assembly, and I just have to put my money on Pentax glass.
I've used some Stigma lenses in the past, I didn't like the way they felt, I didn't like the colour rendition, I didn't thing they rendered images as nicely as Pentax glass, I found the lack of flare control to be absurdly bad, and overall, I didn't think they were as well built.

Frankly, I am surprised that there are so many third party glass users on what is supposed to be a Pentax forum, since the best reason to shoot Pentax is the lenses, and if you aren't going to use Pentax glass, it really doesn't matter whose body you shoot with, and there are a lot of cameras out there that are way better performing than anything Pentax has on the market, albeit at a somewhat higher cost.
06-09-2008, 10:42 AM   #19
Senior Member
applejax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Albums
Posts: 265
QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
I also didn't think much of the range, and would have preferred a 24-105mm f/4 (but nobody's asking me and this zoom will never be built until full-frame digital becomes mainstream).
You didn't make it quite clear, so excuse me if I'm off base, but

Realize 17-70 in APS-C = the classic 28-105 FOV in 35mm.

The 17-70 range is an excellent one for a walkaround lens.

While it's still speculation, add in weather sealing and SDM, and I think it sounds pretty darn good.

--applejax

06-09-2008, 11:28 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Georgia
Posts: 376
Oh gosh, people are judging the quality of the lens before it's really out.

I agree if it's the same as the 16-45mm it's going to be in my bag
06-09-2008, 11:42 AM   #21
RaduA
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote
It's going to be a kit lens at some point. Competes w/ the Nikon 18-70 which was the kit lens for the D200.

That said, from reviews, it seems the Sigma is sharper though it'll be noisier w/o SDM. I like the warmer color rendition of the Sigma better as well and after I got a good copy, I'm pretty happy with it.
A 17-70 is too slow for weddings...
Care to name a few reviews of DA 17-70? What the heck care to name ONE review of DA 17-70?
06-09-2008, 05:38 PM   #22
Pentaxian
Arpe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,344
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Frankly, I am surprised that there are so many third party glass users on what is supposed to be a Pentax forum, since the best reason to shoot Pentax is the lenses, and if you aren't going to use Pentax glass, it really doesn't matter whose body you shoot with, and there are a lot of cameras out there that are way better performing than anything Pentax has on the market, albeit at a somewhat higher cost.
Well gee, it'd pretty golly gosh darn hard to find a Pentax 70-200/2.8, or before now a Pentax 17-70, or anything like a Pentax 55-300, so of course there's lots of other glass around. Tried to purcahse a Pentax 1.4x or 2x lately?

And of course cost is a major influence in anyone's decision to buy a dslr.
06-09-2008, 06:54 PM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SE BC and NE Montana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 198
QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
Think about it, when was the last time you shot in the rain?
PS: Yes, I know the shoot-at-the-beach crowd will boo me for not wanting weather sealing, but beach crowds are a minority.
Why would you assume that because you don't shoot in wet or potentially wet or dusty situations, others don't as well?

I don't know about the "beach crowd" and how many of them there are, but how about those of us who live in the mountains? Lots of rain and heavy morning dew there. Vegetation in the mountains, once wet, stays wet for a long time. Care to try the Gulf Islands or Alaska or the Pacific Coast? There's a lot of places where, if you put your camera away when it's wet, you won't spend a lot of time taking pictures. And how about those of us who are active and kayak, flyfish, etc - any activity around water? Then there's the prairies and other places where the wind and wind blown dust is just a fact of life. Skiing/mountaineering when it is snowing or snow is blowing around?

Bottom line. Lots of photographers find weather sealing to be a real bonus, given the environment we practice photography in. And the build of the K10d for what it cost was one of the main reasons I went with it instead of a Nikon D80 which I also tried and found to be a very nice camera.

How that translates into sales of camera bodies and lenses in the marketing arena, I have no idea. But tuff stuff certainly gets my attention - I've damaged too much gear over the years to think otherwise. I looked at it as the price of carrying camera gear in those environments to get the photographs I did, but all things considered I'd rather have had gear that could take it and survive.

QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I've used some Stigma lenses in the past, I didn't like the way they felt, I didn't like the colour rendition, I didn't thing they rendered images as nicely as Pentax glass, I found the lack of flare control to be absurdly bad, and overall, I didn't think they were as well built.

Frankly, I am surprised that there are so many third party glass users on what is supposed to be a Pentax forum, since the best reason to shoot Pentax is the lenses, and if you aren't going to use Pentax glass, it really doesn't matter whose body you shoot with, and there are a lot of cameras out there that are way better performing than anything Pentax has on the market, albeit at a somewhat higher cost.
Hmmmm... and yet you said this at almost the same time elsewhere:
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I really think people spend way too much time obsessing over good lenses vs. bad lenses. I get a kick out of the whole IQ thing that gets batted around here like as if it means something.
Now if we do spend too much time obsessing over good lenses vs. bad lenses, how can sticking with Pentax glass be such an important issue - is Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, etc really that bad that it is worth obsessing over and sticking with Pentax?

To be more on topic... hands up all you Sigma 17-70 owners who are disappointed with your copy of this lens, think it produces lousy images, etc? Funnily enough, I think most Sigma 17-70 owners are going to be like me - very pleased with the results they get from this lens.

The issue of Sigma in general is worth it's own discussion I suppose, although it is also true that Pentax is not exactly unknown for having it's own QC/QA problems on a fairly regular basis... DA* 16-50mm, anyone?

The bottom line is that the Pentax 17-70's main competition is going to come from the Sigma 17-70 - a lens that has been very well accepted indeed, and not just within the Pentax community. If there is any doubt of that, all you need to do is a search of these forums and read the comments from people here that use this lens. If this new Pentax lens doesn't offer significantly better image quality for the street price or equal performance for approximately the same price - or the cachet of having "Pentax" instead of "Sigma" enscribed on the lens for approximately the same price - then Sigma is probably going to continue selling Pentax users a lot of 17-70 lenses. With the advantage of a quasi-macro function that the Pentax apparently lacks, no less. Macro purists might look down on this, but I have found the Sigma's "macro" ability to be a great feature of this lens.

I can see why you might feel surprised that Pentax users would happily use third-party glass when it suits their needs - most of us obviously don't have the same approach to photography that you do, so using third party glass that suits our needs and IQ standards is not an issue. Perhaps we do not obsess over the brand name written on the lens, but concentrate more on other things. We appear to be coming from two different worlds here.

I also certainly don't agree with you that the only reason to shoot with a Pentax is Pentax glass. Canon, Nikon, et al and for that matter "third party" lens manufacturers also make pretty good glass. Would sticking to Pentax glass rather than glass in the same class from Canon or Nikon actually make the overwhelming majority of us better photographers? I doubt it.

"if you aren't going to use Pentax glass, it really doesn't matter whose body you shoot with"? Really!

Where do I get a Canon or Nikon with the same build quality and environmental sealing at the same price as a K10d, for example? I'd rather save the money on a Pentax body - and then spend it on glass, thanks.

What if I prefer the layout of the controls on the Pentax body better than I like those of the Nikons, Canons, et al? And I do, by the way... although I am also sure I wouldn't cry too many tears over this if my only options were Nikons and Canons.

And where, in the Nikon/Canon world, do I get in-body image stabilization at the same price I get it for in my K10d? If I didn't care about image stabilization or preferred it built into the lens, then perhaps this isn't an issue - but it certainly is for me. What is the average price jump that putting image stabilization into a lens brings? Enough that over several lenses it equals the cost of another lens or buying higher quality glass to begin with?

I think the short story is, "who cares about the body" is like weatherproofing/ruggedness, one man's poison is another man's meat. While for people like yourself it is specifically about Pentax glass with the body being if anything slightly inferior to other choices, for many other Pentax users there are many and good reasons for using both third party glass at times AND specifically choosing Pentax over values relating to the Pentax body.

When you think about it, many fields of photography are incredibly opposite to each other in the setting and the equipment used. The photographer that shoots primarily in a studio using lighting equipment, versus the one who shoots on a ten day backpacking trip through the Rockies in all types of weather where space and weight are very much a factor is just one example of that. I've never shot in a studio in my life - but I have shot on countless backpacking trips and military operations where I had to decide what I was going to leave out of my pack in exchange for the room to carry an extra lens or (gasp) a flash.

The neat thing - which photographers using all brands benefit from - is that never before have we had such a rich choice of superb equipment placed in front of us. And whether for any individual it's all about the glass, or the body, or what kind of focusing drive the lens has, we have a banquet of choices in front of us these days.

As for me... I'm waiting to see if the new Pentax 17-70 will show me something that will bring me to put my Sigma up for sale so I can move to Pentax's version of this zoom.

06-09-2008, 07:02 PM   #24
Veteran Member
heatherslightbox's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gainesville, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,595
Well said, Rick!

The only way that I might trade my Sigma 17-70 for the Pentax 17-70 is that the IQ on the 17-70 is absolutely breaktaking and if it was weathersealed. I don't think it's weathersealed, so that is already one strike against it. I just wish that the Pentax weathersealed lenses were a little more affordable, because if I had a weathersealed lens, then I might very well be inclined to go out in the rain to shoot.

I suppose I could replace the 17-70 with the 16-50, but I like the extra 20 mm at the long end and the QC issues leave me skittish about buying it, if I did actually have the money for it.

While some people really need the extra performance features of the high-end Canons and Nikons, my K10D does everything I want it to do--and then some that I haven't figured out how to do yet.

While Pentax may not have a great advertising campaign yet, we just need to keep getting the word out to everybody that for most photographers, Pentax is most definitely a viable alternative to Canon and Nikon.

Heather
06-09-2008, 09:29 PM   #25
Veteran Member
TourDeForce's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 512
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
Important to note those photos from Ned are pre-production samples of the lens. I would reserve judgement until actual production copies get reviewed and sample images show up.
Now that is something I had not taken into account. Thanks for that.

Back to the issue of the lens, the pricing of good quality lenses is a concern for me. If ANY company wants my several hundred dollars for glass, then I expect that glass to be top flight in the vast majority of situations that I will need it.

I'm glad the pre-production prototype was rolled out & we can offer feedback. I hope the people at Pentax read my post and have a look for themselves to make sure the production version addresses the resolution issue. That would be fantastic! As a going concern they must acknowledge they have competition who will gladly take their sales if they fail to release a formidable product.

Sigma has their own problems with QC, and I have observed that a number of their lenses cast a yellow-ish hue over sample scenes as compared to their competition. I don't particularly care for Sigma either, but their 17-70mm is a solid performer and lacks the yellow cast.

Pentax, please make lenses like the old fast 50s. They were beautiful performers and if you produced new glass like those I would be HAPPY and ENTHUSIASTIC about saving money to afford one.
06-10-2008, 01:53 AM   #26
Veteran Member
gkopeliadis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ATHENS, GREECE
Posts: 311
Out Of Topic

QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
... Stigma equipment
Sigma (Σ or σ or ς at the end of a word) and Stigma (Ϛ or ϛ) are different letters of the midieval (Byzantine) Greek alphabet, and not to be confused

PS I got your word play allright
06-10-2008, 03:22 PM   #27
Veteran Member
AndrewG NY's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chappaqua, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 679
QuoteOriginally posted by KungPOW Quote
I think it is to become the new kit lens for the up-and-coming K2000D. To shave costs, I doubt the new entry level camera will have a autofocus motor (ala d40,d40x,d60).
I respect that you're trying to think this through but I don't see this ever being a kit lens on a budget body. If it comes to this (and I think it might be some time) there will more likely be a new 18-55 III 3.5-5.6 SDM or some other lightweight, lower cost, slower kit lens.
06-10-2008, 03:35 PM   #28
Veteran Member
AndrewG NY's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chappaqua, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 679
QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
When they first announced this lens I also asked myself (and on forums) "what the hell are they thinking?". In my view, there are other lenses we need more than this one. I also didn't think much of the range, and would have preferred a 24-105mm f/4 (but nobody's asking me and this zoom will never be built until full-frame digital becomes mainstream).
Right, Mis--this IS the 24-105 f/4, nearly perfect all-around zoom range for many users but for APS-C rather than full frame. I am of like mind, this is why my FA 24-90 f/3.5-4.5 is perhaps my favorite zoom. *Most* of the time, 24mm is wide enough--it's only when I'm trying to take in scenes on tighter streets and show expansive interiors that I start to wish I had the 16-45 on. I wonder whether I will end up trying a 17-70 instead though as the difference between 70 and 90 is relatively slight compared to the more substantial difference between 17 and 24. I generally like the 16-45 but find myself wanting to change lenses too often. I wouldn't mind having SDM and Quick-shift on my walkabout lens.

QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
If street price is $450, I think they will sell a lot of these lenses.
Yes--I don't understand why so many people think that this is going to have a $600 street price. I see them charging a bit more than a 16-45 but Pentax probably doesn't want to cannibalize DA* sales either.

QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
I think most people would rather have SDM than weather sealing.
Again, yes. Avoiding lens changes is pretty valuable too in terms of protecting the innards of your D-SLR body--hence the highly useful focal length range. I assume in the years to come as SDM support becomes more universal SDM will cease to be a novel, extra-cost feature. Right now, the demand probably allows them to charge a bit of a premium. I imagine that at some point Sigma will release a HSM 17-70 for Pentax as well.
06-10-2008, 03:48 PM   #29
Veteran Member
AndrewG NY's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chappaqua, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 679
QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote
It's going to be a kit lens at some point. Competes w/ the Nikon 18-70 which was the kit lens for the D200.
I can see it *maybe* becoming a kit lens on a pricier body like a K30D or K1D.

I am expecting that the DA 17-70 f/4 lens will be better constructed than and outperform the reputedly decent Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, at least I hope so, given that it will probably street price at least $100 more. There's room for improvement in terms of distortion, vignetting, and sharpness over the Nikon. Certainly it will be better than the Sony 18-70 f/3.5-5-6.

QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote
That said, from reviews, it seems the Sigma is sharper though it'll be noisier w/o SDM.
Who has reviewed this just-announced lens? (links?) And are we talking corner-to-corner sharpness or just center? My understanding is that the DA16-45 is already probably sharper corner to corner than the Sigma.


QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote
A 17-70 is too slow for weddings...
Debatable, I'll bet quite there are quite a few Canon 24-105 L f/4 IS examples in wedding service.
06-10-2008, 04:08 PM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 338
I'm mostly concerned about its sharpness wide open. With a f4 max, Ill be there frequently. I'm really hoping its a longer version of the 16-45.
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!
da*, gain, k-mount, pentax lens, sigma, slr lens, tele
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:28 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