[mee]

The DA* lenses are weather sealed. My primes are not.

Plus I'm more of a fan of zooms anyways. I don't appreciate the limitations of a single focal length so much. Only when I'm going small and light do I try to make it work with a prime. Otherwise there is a zoom (usually a DA*) on the end of my camera body.

[FantasticMrFox]

As it happens, I have or have had, each of these three lenses. The DA* is hands down a better performer than the Sigma. The tammy is close, but feels cheap. I have no explanation for the PF review results. I can only state that my personal experience if diametrically opposed.

I cannot state any personal experiences, because I've never had the Pentax, but all reviews I've found when making the Pentax vs. Sigma vs. Tamron decision (ePhotozine, Photozone, forum posts by owners etc.) noted very poor edge performance at maximum aperture (and somewhat better but still not great when stopped down) and strong CAs. Most people essentially said that if you want great construction and weather resistance, go for the Pentax, but optically and in terms of AF the Sigma prevails.

As there is a lot of sample variation, maybe you've just been unlucky with your Sigma copy or very lucky with the Pentax?

[wizofoz]

As there is a lot of sample variation, maybe you've just been unlucky with your Sigma copy or very lucky with the Pentax?

Yep that's possible Mr F. Or maybe there is an inherent bias against the Pentax lens, who knows? Its also just possible that we are dealing with very small differences that testing facilities need to exaggerate to justify their existence. The DA* is a stellar performer; tough, WR, and has the Pentax colour signature. It's good enough for me.

Oh...and the focus ring turns the 'right' way ....

[tromboads]

You should let me borrow it When is the next Melbourne Pentax meet up :P

[wizofoz]

you are welcome to Tom, and all my other lenses. Just say the word. If we wait for the next Melb meetup as long as It has been since the last one, I might have to leave it to you in my will....

[FantasticMrFox]

Or maybe there is an inherent bias against the Pentax lens ...

By Pentaxforums?

Oh...and the focus ring turns the 'right' way ....

Oh yes, that's a really weird thing I am still struggling with. And the Sigma doesn't have Quickshift.

[wizofoz]

By Pentaxforums?

Cultural cringe? It is a phenomena well known to Aussies... nah it was just one persons opinion of the lenses he had for testing. We really are talking at the edges of performance here (literally the edge). I find no fault with my DA*, he did... no biggie, just difference.

[Rondec]

Why does everyone complain about them then? (the DA*'s that is) They don't sound that bad?

Oh well. Next present to myself.

I think those with SDM failures have been pretty vocal on the forum. Some of that has died down over the last year plus, since it was figured out how to convert these lenses to screw drive. When the 16-50 came out, it had quite a bit of trouble with decentering. Those problems seem to have abated as well, but it was one of those lenses where you worried a lot about buying a new one.

I have been pretty pleased with mine.

16-50





50-135





For me, these lenses have done everything I wanted optically and are weather sealed to boot. The only negatives that I really have are that the 16-50 is pretty prone to flare and that the 50-135 focus pretty slowly. I don't worry about SDM a lot -- it is easy to convert these lenses to screw drive and whether the rest of the world expects silent focus or not, Pentaxians know that the sound of the screw drive is the sound of security.

[wizofoz]

Oh yes, that's a really weird thing I am still struggling with. And the Sigma doesn't have Quickshift.

yep, quickshift is a big deal for some; and no WR, and it just doesn't feel 'right' - whatever that means- after handling Pentax lenses. disclaimer here. I dont think Canon lenses feel right either, but wierdly I find Nikon top of the line lenses to feel much like Pentax, just focus the wrong way. Their cheap plastic crap is just that.

---------- Post added 20th Jan 2016 at 22:42 ----------

gee Rondec, how did you get those shots with such a crappy lens??? Love the waterfall

[tromboads]

I best go stir the fuss and set a date now then! :P

[Qwntm]

Although buying new SDM lenses is a task best approached with caution, at the right price, it's still a great option. Just make sure you can return/exchange if anything is amiss.


I check the serial number against the SN database here. My feeling is the "newer the better." I also put the lens on camera with the camera on for 10 minutes to charge everything up after sitting on the shelf for 6 months at the dealer before trying to focus with it.


I then shoot some casual stuff and if that aint sharp I get the tripods out and shoot some brick walls.


I am awaiting a 50-135mm that I sent back because it's just not supposed to chirp when it focuses.... Be here end of next week.


As for the Prime vs Zoom debate, that's personal. I like both, but when the heats on and the weddings zipping along, you can't beat the zoom. But I'm starting to dislike the weight. On the other hand, life gets pretty boring sitting around in your pajama's all day long avoiding discomfort. It's amazing how soft were all getting these days! Just do it!

[clackers]

But I'm starting to dislike the weight. On the other hand, life gets pretty boring sitting around in your pajama's all day long avoiding discomfort. It's amazing how soft were all getting these days! Just do it!

Agree.

Serious image quality means a serious amount of glass.

We get it good in APS-C land.

Pick up an L-series 70-200 f2.8 some time. ☺

[Qwntm]

Agree.

Serious image quality means a serious amount of glass.

We get it good in APS-C land.

Pick up an L-series 70-200 f2.8 some time. ☺

Yes, just couldn't do it... I had a D810 with the Tamron 70-200 VC lens a bracket and an SB-910. There was NO WAY that I was carrying that around for 8 hours at a wedding. Not when I could shoot a K3 with a 50-135mm and for the intended production and job completion the output was the same quality.


I am trying to figure out how to shoot weddings with the 15/21/35/70 LTD's. If that works this summer, I'll be very happy!! I know the IQ is good enough, I am not sure about the maximum f stops. We'll see. Probably not as big a deal in reality as in theory.

[northcoastgreg]

all reviews I've found when making the Pentax vs. Sigma vs. Tamron decision (ePhotozine, Photozone, forum posts by owners etc.) noted very poor edge performance at maximum aperture (and somewhat better but still not great when stopped down) and strong CAs. Most people essentially said that if you want great construction and weather resistance, go for the Pentax, but optically and in terms of AF the Sigma prevails.

I'm not sure about the "most people." Some people obviously have that view, but I suspect the main reason some people prefer the Sigma and the Tamron choices is the lower price. In terms of resolution, I doubt you're going to notice any difference in real world use. Indeed, I went back and looked at the PF review of these three lenses, and the differences were minuscule. Even at with very large crops, it was difficult to notice any difference. But when I look at "real world" images, I find myself preferring what I see from the Pentax to what I see from the Sigma. And as images count far more than numerical tests, I'm inclined to suspect that the DA* 16-50 is the best of the f2.8 zooms, and worth the additional price not merely for the WR and the build quality, but for the Pentax colors and rendering.

As for the larger issue of primes versus f2.8 zooms, I'll tend to favor the primes over the zooms, not merely because of the size, but honestly, I don't need the f2.8. When I need focal range diversity, I reach a high quality slower aperture zoom, like the DA 16-85, which is lighter than the DA* 16-50, yet covers a greater range and is almost as good, optically. I do, however, own one f2.8 zoom, the Tamron 70-200, which I bought to use at a local zoo. It rarely gets used for anything else, because outside of the zoo I rarely shoot in that range, and it's a pain to drag around a large lens that will get very little use.

[tromboads]

That really is the point isn't it.

Unless you take the same images with all the variants you are never going to know what you are missing. Aka the difference is really exploded somewhat.