I bought the Sigma 70 macro instead of the Pentax 100 macro, for the whole better lens for the price thing. 5 years later I'm still thinking of buying the Pentax and relagating the Sigma to work around the yard, if I keep it at all. The tamron 90 is our faviroite (Tess and myself) and it';s not WR. The extra size and weight just make it impractical. So as for his decision, I went the same way, but in the end. Buying the Sigma didn't make me stop wanting the Pentax.
Because of my experience the Sigma purchase is now viewed as a mistake, I got sucked in by the cheap price. So while I appreciate his point of view, I'd say, follow it at your peril. A lens that is actually with you when it's not the primary lens for a shoot, is in the end a lot more useful than one that isn't and Sigma doesn't make lenses you just casually throw in the bag (because you might get an opportunity to use it) and take out for a hike.
For the amount of images I take with the lens wide open, Ben's conclusions are way too weighted towards the extra half stop of the Sigma. I'm one of those guys lamenting the lack of good quality portable ƒ4 lenses.
After reading DxO for years and now this video I'm starting to wonder, am I the only one who thinks being too heavy to carry as part of a 5 lens hiking set, (for the K-1 28-105, and 60-250, macro and a couple of primes for landscape), is a design flaw?
With the K-3 I use the 21 ltd and 40 XS., nice a small, and fit into a pocket sizes waterproof case. The 31 is bit bigger, than the 21, but the Sigma dwarfs it.
But I'm glad he found something he liked. As statement of personal preference it's an OK video. As information for me, I look at the video and I want the 31, not the 35. They are close enough in IQ that the difference in the lenses isn't going to noticeably affect the final image. And in his conclusion he states price is a factor.
Been there, done that. His experience isn't my experience. I made that mistake once thinking almost exactly like he thinks, and in the end, it's cost my a lot of great images because I left the comparatively huge Sigma lens home. But I'm looking at it from 5 years later, not a time of purchase.
As so often happens in consumer choices, same data, different conclusions, the personal style of the shooter is more relevant to the choice than any other factor. To me, both lenses are excellent, I'm going smaller if possible. Adding more weight for minimal gain in some selected areas favoured by the reviewer makes absolutely no sense to me personally.
I wonder if 5 years from now, Ben isn't going to feel the same way.
Last edited by normhead; 07-12-2017 at 08:23 AM.