Can anyone compare: Sigma 17-70 vs Pentax 16-85

myrdinn · 10-29-2015, 04:52 PM

I'm looking for a new walk around lens. I wanted to buy the Sigma 17-70 mm as I already have the Sigma 10-20 and I really love its sharpness and its colours. But now there is also the Pentax 16-85. Has anyone used both lenses so that she/he can compare ? Which of these two gives the best IQ?

bxf · 10-29-2015, 05:21 PM

This may help:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/297524-da-1...omparison.html

Sorry, I just now saw you were trying to compare the Sigma 17-70, not the Pentax counterpart.

johnhilvert · 10-29-2015, 05:39 PM

Or HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database v https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/sigma-17-70mm-f28-4-contemporary

candgpics · 10-29-2015, 06:20 PM - **2 Likes**

Hi. I owned both. Took the 16-85 to Europe with me this summer. I had the Sigma for a few weeks. If you PM me I am happy to send you some pics. I always shoot RAW. I can also give you my opinion in some detail, but in summary the lenses are quite comparable and any difference in image quality is negligible, IMHO.

I think the Sigma may be a bit cooler and the Pentax warmer, but that I think is typical. They are both good quality travel zooms. I know the Pentax has WR and arguably more heft, but the Sigma is well made and has a longer warranty. And, I have several Sigma lenses and have used Sigma service and tech support on a couple of occasions. At least here in the US, Sigma service is quick, friendly, and of excellent quality.

The Pentax lens is fine, but if I had an opportunity to make the purchase again I'd get the Sigma given the warranty and lower price, although the price difference between the two has gotten smaller.

The 2.8 for the Sigma, albeit only on the wider end, is nice. The Pentax is 3.5 up to 20, 4.0 up to 30, then 4.5 up to 68. So, it is only moderately slower at comparable focal lengths.

Hope the above is helpful.

bdery · 10-30-2015, 05:01 AM - **1 Like**

I've owned the Sigma 17-70 for 7 years (first version, obviously, but all three versions compare well optically).

The main advantage of the Sigma is that it's faster, normally about 2/3 of a stop. The advantages of the 16-85 are reach and WR. V2 and V3 of the Sigma have quiet AF, and having tested V2 myself I can confirm that the 16-85 focuses faster. No idea about V3.

Optically both are stellar, each with different character. Sigma's lens is cooler, has subtly more smooth bokeh, and its close focusing capabilities are excellent (many of my "macro" shots were done with that lens). the Pentax feels sharper (mainly because of microcontrast, since the Sigma itself is very very sharp), with more natural colours (typically Pentax). Distortion is comparable on the shared range. With both lenses I've always felt very comfortable shooting wide open.

What annoyed me the most about the Sigma was how the V1 couldn't catch up with more modern lenses for live view AF. I replaced it and the 18-55 for the 16-85. the 1mm gain at the wide end is tremendous, and the 15mm gain at the tele end is important. WR for me is invaluable. The 16-85 is longer but not heavier. I'm not a fan of having the focus ring near the body.

If you have other, more specific questions, I'll be happy to reply.

mcgregni · 10-30-2015, 07:50 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by candgpics

Hi. I owned both. Took the 16-85 to Europe with me this summer. I had the Sigma for a few weeks. If you PM me I am happy to send you some pics. I always shoot RAW. I can also give you my opinion in some detail, but in summary the lenses are quite comparable and any difference in image quality is negligible, IMHO.

I think the Sigma may be a bit cooler and the Pentax warmer, but that I think is typical. They are both good quality travel zooms. I know the Pentax has WR and arguably more heft, but the Sigma is well made and has a longer warranty. And, I have several Sigma lenses and have used Sigma service and tech support on a couple of occasions. At least here in the US, Sigma service is quick, friendly, and of excellent quality.

The Pentax lens is fine, but if I had an opportunity to make the purchase again I'd get the Sigma given the warranty and lower price, although the price difference between the two has gotten smaller.

The 2.8 for the Sigma, albeit only on the wider end, is nice. The Pentax is 3.5 up to 20, 4.0 up to 30, then 4.5 up to 68. So, it is only moderately slower at comparable focal lengths.

Hope the above is helpful.

Thankyou, even for the interested observer your post is one of the most helpful I've ever seen as regards lens comparisons. Thanks also to bdery after you for even more useful info.

Edgar_in_Indy · 10-30-2015, 08:16 AM

I've researched these two lenses recently for use in my studio now that my trusty old Tamron 28-75mm died. Optically, I found what has already been stated on here: both lenses provide excellent image quality, so the decision comes down to the slightly different feature set of each lens, and of course the price.

I liked the idea of the longer focal length on the 16-85mm since a narrower field of view lets me get more of my subject and less of the background when I'm doing product photography. However, the Sigma is the class leader in close up/macro work, which is probably why they use "Macro" in the name. It has a minimum focus distance of 8.7" (22 cm) and a maximum maginfication of 0.37x. The Pentax, on the other hand, focuses to 13.8" (35 cm) with a magnification of 0.26x. So depending on how one plans to use the lens, this could be a factor. For me, the close-focusing is a big advantage of the Sigma in my studio, but for somebody wanting to do a little quasi-macro work of flowers and such with their walk-around lens, it would also be useful.

The Pentax goes wider, so if you don't already have an ultra-wide lens, that may be compelling. And of course it has WR. For my uses, those were both non-issues. The Sigma is slightly faster, but for me in the studio that was also a non-issue since I'll usually be stopped down anyway.

In the end, the lenses are more similar than they are different, with a few key differences, so it's kind of a tough call. But the $150 price advantage for the Sigma could tip the scale for a lot of people, assuming they don't need WR.

Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 10-30-2015 at 08:30 AM.

robjmitchell · 10-30-2015, 02:16 PM

I prefer the pentax colours, which produce better blues and skin tones where as the sigma give nicer greens from personal experience. It then just comes down to whether you want WR, otherwise the sigma offers slightly better performance due to faster aperture and close focusing. If your not worried about WR I would also consider the sigma 17-50/2.8, although i do really miss the 70mm of my old sigma 17-70 vs my da*16-50.

myrdinn · 10-30-2015, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by robjmitchell

I prefer the pentax colours, which produce better blues and skin tones where as the sigma give nicer greens from personal experience. It then just comes down to whether you want WR, otherwise the sigma offers slightly better performance due to faster aperture and close focusing. If your not worried about WR I would also consider the sigma 17-50/2.8, although i do really miss the 70mm of my old sigma 17-70 vs my da*16-50.

Thanks to everyone for the information.
WR is not an issue for me. I already have the Sigma 10-20 mm which makes that I don't care if a zoom lens starts at 16 mm or at 17 mm.
So It'll be the Sigma, considering its lower price and its three years warranty that we can have here in Belgium.

10-29-2015, 04:52 PM	#1
myrdinn Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: belgium Posts: 96	Can anyone compare: Sigma 17-70 vs Pentax 16-85 I'm looking for a new walk around lens. I wanted to buy the Sigma 17-70 mm as I already have the Sigma 10-20 and I really love its sharpness and its colours. But now there is also the Pentax 16-85. Has anyone used both lenses so that she/he can compare ? Which of these two gives the best IQ?

10-29-2015, 05:21 PM	#2
bxf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Lisbon area Posts: 1,660	This may help: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/297524-da-1...omparison.html Sorry, I just now saw you were trying to compare the Sigma 17-70, not the Pentax counterpart. Last edited by bxf; 10-29-2015 at 05:50 PM.

10-29-2015, 05:39 PM	#3
johnhilvert Senior Member Join Date: May 2015 Location: Canberra, ACT Posts: 245	Or HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database v https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/sigma-17-70mm-f28-4-contemporary Last edited by johnhilvert; 10-29-2015 at 05:40 PM. Reason: brain snap

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 17-70 vs. Pentax 16-85	simsburyphoto	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	05-06-2015 05:03 PM
Anyone compare the 'walkaround' Pentax zoom lens? DA*16-50 & DA17-70	JayR	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	10-24-2011 07:52 AM
Pentax 16/45 vs Sigma 17-70	Aneopa	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	39	10-06-2010 03:11 PM
New 17-70 vs Sigma vs 16-45	joefru	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	06-25-2009 05:22 PM
Sigma 17-70 vs. Pentax 16-45	spesholized	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	12-29-2006 07:01 PM

10-29-2015, 06:20 PM - 2 Likes	#4
candgpics Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Maine, USA Posts: 394	Hi. I owned both. Took the 16-85 to Europe with me this summer. I had the Sigma for a few weeks. If you PM me I am happy to send you some pics. I always shoot RAW. I can also give you my opinion in some detail, but in summary the lenses are quite comparable and any difference in image quality is negligible, IMHO. I think the Sigma may be a bit cooler and the Pentax warmer, but that I think is typical. They are both good quality travel zooms. I know the Pentax has WR and arguably more heft, but the Sigma is well made and has a longer warranty. And, I have several Sigma lenses and have used Sigma service and tech support on a couple of occasions. At least here in the US, Sigma service is quick, friendly, and of excellent quality. The Pentax lens is fine, but if I had an opportunity to make the purchase again I'd get the Sigma given the warranty and lower price, although the price difference between the two has gotten smaller. The 2.8 for the Sigma, albeit only on the wider end, is nice. The Pentax is 3.5 up to 20, 4.0 up to 30, then 4.5 up to 68. So, it is only moderately slower at comparable focal lengths. Hope the above is helpful.

10-30-2015, 05:01 AM - 1 Like	#5
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	I've owned the Sigma 17-70 for 7 years (first version, obviously, but all three versions compare well optically). The main advantage of the Sigma is that it's faster, normally about 2/3 of a stop. The advantages of the 16-85 are reach and WR. V2 and V3 of the Sigma have quiet AF, and having tested V2 myself I can confirm that the 16-85 focuses faster. No idea about V3. Optically both are stellar, each with different character. Sigma's lens is cooler, has subtly more smooth bokeh, and its close focusing capabilities are excellent (many of my "macro" shots were done with that lens). the Pentax feels sharper (mainly because of microcontrast, since the Sigma itself is very very sharp), with more natural colours (typically Pentax). Distortion is comparable on the shared range. With both lenses I've always felt very comfortable shooting wide open. What annoyed me the most about the Sigma was how the V1 couldn't catch up with more modern lenses for live view AF. I replaced it and the 18-55 for the 16-85. the 1mm gain at the wide end is tremendous, and the 15mm gain at the tele end is important. WR for me is invaluable. The 16-85 is longer but not heavier. I'm not a fan of having the focus ring near the body. If you have other, more specific questions, I'll be happy to reply.

10-30-2015, 07:50 AM - 1 Like	#6
mcgregni Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 2,603	Originally posted by candgpics Hi. I owned both. Took the 16-85 to Europe with me this summer. I had the Sigma for a few weeks. If you PM me I am happy to send you some pics. I always shoot RAW. I can also give you my opinion in some detail, but in summary the lenses are quite comparable and any difference in image quality is negligible, IMHO. I think the Sigma may be a bit cooler and the Pentax warmer, but that I think is typical. They are both good quality travel zooms. I know the Pentax has WR and arguably more heft, but the Sigma is well made and has a longer warranty. And, I have several Sigma lenses and have used Sigma service and tech support on a couple of occasions. At least here in the US, Sigma service is quick, friendly, and of excellent quality. The Pentax lens is fine, but if I had an opportunity to make the purchase again I'd get the Sigma given the warranty and lower price, although the price difference between the two has gotten smaller. The 2.8 for the Sigma, albeit only on the wider end, is nice. The Pentax is 3.5 up to 20, 4.0 up to 30, then 4.5 up to 68. So, it is only moderately slower at comparable focal lengths. Hope the above is helpful. Thankyou, even for the interested observer your post is one of the most helpful I've ever seen as regards lens comparisons. Thanks also to bdery after you for even more useful info.

10-30-2015, 08:16 AM	#7
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	I've researched these two lenses recently for use in my studio now that my trusty old Tamron 28-75mm died. Optically, I found what has already been stated on here: both lenses provide excellent image quality, so the decision comes down to the slightly different feature set of each lens, and of course the price. I liked the idea of the longer focal length on the 16-85mm since a narrower field of view lets me get more of my subject and less of the background when I'm doing product photography. However, the Sigma is the class leader in close up/macro work, which is probably why they use "Macro" in the name. It has a minimum focus distance of 8.7" (22 cm) and a maximum maginfication of 0.37x. The Pentax, on the other hand, focuses to 13.8" (35 cm) with a magnification of 0.26x. So depending on how one plans to use the lens, this could be a factor. For me, the close-focusing is a big advantage of the Sigma in my studio, but for somebody wanting to do a little quasi-macro work of flowers and such with their walk-around lens, it would also be useful. The Pentax goes wider, so if you don't already have an ultra-wide lens, that may be compelling. And of course it has WR. For my uses, those were both non-issues. The Sigma is slightly faster, but for me in the studio that was also a non-issue since I'll usually be stopped down anyway. In the end, the lenses are more similar than they are different, with a few key differences, so it's kind of a tough call. But the $150 price advantage for the Sigma could tip the scale for a lot of people, assuming they don't need WR. Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 10-30-2015 at 08:30 AM.

10-30-2015, 02:16 PM	#8
robjmitchell Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne Aus Posts: 1,776	I prefer the pentax colours, which produce better blues and skin tones where as the sigma give nicer greens from personal experience. It then just comes down to whether you want WR, otherwise the sigma offers slightly better performance due to faster aperture and close focusing. If your not worried about WR I would also consider the sigma 17-50/2.8, although i do really miss the 70mm of my old sigma 17-70 vs my da*16-50.

10-30-2015, 05:21 PM	#9
myrdinn Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: belgium Posts: 96 Original Poster	Originally posted by robjmitchell I prefer the pentax colours, which produce better blues and skin tones where as the sigma give nicer greens from personal experience. It then just comes down to whether you want WR, otherwise the sigma offers slightly better performance due to faster aperture and close focusing. If your not worried about WR I would also consider the sigma 17-50/2.8, although i do really miss the 70mm of my old sigma 17-70 vs my da*16-50. Thanks to everyone for the information. WR is not an issue for me. I already have the Sigma 10-20 mm which makes that I don't care if a zoom lens starts at 16 mm or at 17 mm. So It'll be the Sigma, considering its lower price and its three years warranty that we can have here in Belgium.