Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Is the Pentax 17-70 worth the extra cost over the price of a Sigma 17-70?
Yes 5354.08%
No 4545.92%
Voters: 98. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-09-2009, 04:50 PM   #16
Veteran Member
heatherslightbox's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gainesville, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,595
Original Poster
Already have the second body...K200.
Flash...I have a Sunpak 383, which is OK, but I would eventually like to get one that uses PTTL--I'm thinking that a Metz 48 or AF540 (assuming that I get one from ProDigital2000 for around $250) will do the job. One thing that might tip the scales towards getting the flash sooner rather than later is that I may be going to a college reunion in June and it would come in handy for indoor pics.

As I said before, my final decision will most likely have to wait until after I get back from my trip in May for financial reasons, so there's no rush for me to make a decision right now.

Heather

02-09-2009, 05:40 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,434
Not worth it

I had the sigma 17-70 for almost 2 years and was pretty happy with the lens... but not completely. Even at f8 or 9 where I usually try to shoot, the extreme borders looked skewed and when I started doing panoramas it was really noticeable. Yes I could crop, but when you take the time to compose in the viewfinder exactly what you want, cropping defeats the purpose.

I decided I needed to go with another lens. I looked at the Photozone review and did not see the Pentax lens being a "step-up" including the fact it's a non-macro lens. I already have a 10-20mm so the wide end is covered.

I ended up going with the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 for several reasons, not the least of which it's full frame. I've also dumped a couple other digital frame lenses for full frame just because of the borders and vignetting.

In summary, for me it's all about optics and the Pentax optics for this lens did not justify the extra expense.
02-09-2009, 07:02 PM   #18
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,683
QuoteOriginally posted by hwblanks Quote
Flash...I have a Sunpak 383, which is OK, but I would eventually like to get one that uses PTTL--I'm thinking that a Metz 48 or AF540 (assuming that I get one from ProDigital2000 for around $250) will do the job. One thing that might tip the scales towards getting the flash sooner rather than later is that I may be going to a college reunion in June and it would come in handy for indoor pics.
P-TTL and wireless.... There's a whole nother world for you. Just think of putting a big flash on a stand, with a diffuser or umbrella for your macros. That is big fun and a big payoff. I don't know how you lit your aquarium shots (good job!), but placing the flash above the tank works well.

I didn't have a flash stand with me but I used wireless flash for most of these shots. For the butterflies I had the flash on the camera, or held it above the the scene with one hand. For the reptiles I just held the flash up against the glass with one hand and took the photo with the other. Picasa Web Albums - Dan - Science North

QuoteOriginally posted by hwblanks Quote
As I said before, my final decision will most likely have to wait until after I get back from my trip in May for financial reasons, so there's no rush for me to make a decision right now.
Oh sure, but first you have to decide what to obsess about.
02-09-2009, 08:51 PM   #19
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
I used to own the DA 16-45mm, now using the Sigma 17-70mm and tried the DA 17-70. Optically, I find the DA 17-70mm isn't really that much better than the Sigma, price aside.

All are consumer grade zooms so they are OK but not outstanding. The DA 16-45mm is showing it's age and while a fine lens I didn't like the extending barrel at 16mm and the zoom and focus rings get sloppy over time. The Sigma betters the DA 16-45mm versatility wise. To me the DA 17-70mm's higher price over the Sigma isn't really worth it despite the SDM, Quick Shift and SMC coating. The aperture difference among the lenses is not an issue in field conditions. Bottom line is the Sigma is best bang for the buck imo.

02-10-2009, 10:20 AM   #20
Veteran Member
heatherslightbox's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gainesville, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,595
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
I used to own the DA 16-45mm, now using the Sigma 17-70mm and tried the DA 17-70. Optically, I find the DA 17-70mm isn't really that much better than the Sigma, price aside.

All are consumer grade zooms so they are OK but not outstanding. The DA 16-45mm is showing it's age and while a fine lens I didn't like the extending barrel at 16mm and the zoom and focus rings get sloppy over time. The Sigma betters the DA 16-45mm versatility wise. To me the DA 17-70mm's higher price over the Sigma isn't really worth it despite the SDM, Quick Shift and SMC coating. The aperture difference among the lenses is not an issue in field conditions. Bottom line is the Sigma is best bang for the buck imo.
So with that being said, if I'm going to spend that kind of money on Pentax lens ($450-500), should I just go ahead and pick up a used 16-50?

One of the concerns I've had about the 16-50 is that it might be too heavy as a walkaround for me. I may see about renting one and giving it a test drive, though.

Heather
02-10-2009, 05:11 PM   #21
Veteran Member
heatherslightbox's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gainesville, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,595
Original Poster
To anybody else that's considering getting the DA17-70, here's a link on the Pentax Users UK group:
SMC-DA 17-70 f/4 A:[IF] SDM
Apparently, the general consensus is positive.

Heather
02-13-2009, 01:06 AM   #22
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 16
I have a Sigma and when looking at a pic, as you move from right left to right (holding the camera in the horizontal/standard manner) the picture gets blurry. Anyone ever here of that happening before?

I've attached a picture of some text so you can easily see what i'm talking about.
Attached Images
 
02-13-2009, 05:06 AM   #23
Veteran Member
heatherslightbox's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gainesville, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,595
Original Poster
Was your page absolutely flat? Judging by the lighting and a little bit of distortion, it looks it it might not be.

Heather

02-13-2009, 09:57 AM   #24
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 16
QuoteOriginally posted by hwblanks Quote
Was your page absolutely flat? Judging by the lighting and a little bit of distortion, it looks it it might not be.

Heather
The page was flat.
02-13-2009, 06:12 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 387
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnnyDop Quote
The page was flat.
It's also possible that the camera was tilted.
02-13-2009, 07:15 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
systemA: Is this true for all your pics? Can we see a regular one (not a photo of a newspaper :-)
I had a Sigma17-70 that had a decentering issue and some pics looked like that. It was fairly obvious when I saw it, but it happened at varying focal lengths and distances...
02-15-2009, 03:14 PM   #27
Veteran Member
heatherslightbox's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gainesville, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,595
Original Poster
Wow! The final results were so close! Thank you to all of you who contributed. Creampuff, your input was especially valuable, since you have actually used both lenses; I appreciate your honest input.

Just to let you know what I've decided to do--I've gone ahead and put my 16-45 up in the Marketplace for sale or trade:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographers-marketplace/51200-pentax-da16-45-4-a.html
Ideally, someone will be willing to trade with me.

While the Pentax has that "wow" factor, I'm not sure if it's worth so much more over the cost of a new Sigma. If I'm out shooting and IQ is of the upmost importance, then I've got a couple of primes (DA21 & FA43) in that general range that will do the job nicely.

Another way that I look at it is to ask myself what I would've done if I still had my original Sigma 17-70. Would I have been satisifed enough with it to keep it or would I have wanted to sell it for the DA17-70? I would've most likely have kept the Sigma, as I was pretty happy with it.

After reading this thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/51066-its-not-...cept-when.html,
I got to thinking that it really is more about the photographer and his or her skills behind the camera than the gear itself. I've found that most bad photos are more about operator error than the gear itself. With a few exceptions, a good photographer can get good results even out of kit lenses.
02-15-2009, 04:07 PM   #28
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,616
I have been using the Pentax 17-70 for a few months now and I love it.
02-17-2009, 03:56 AM   #29
Forum Member
crispy0009's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Palm Beach Gardens, FLORIDA
Posts: 62
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
I have been using the Pentax 17-70 for a few months now and I love it.


Nice to know!
02-17-2009, 03:39 PM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by hwblanks Quote

Another way that I look at it is to ask myself what I would've done if I still had my original Sigma 17-70. Would I have been satisifed enough with it to keep it or would I have wanted to sell it for the DA17-70? I would've most likely have kept the Sigma, as I was pretty happy with it.
I just checked something: Sigma 17-70 tends to sell for the same amount regardless of the mount, even though the Pentax one lacks HSM. The fact that Sigma is ripping off Pentax owners is one of the reasons why I've avoided their crap.
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!
k-mount, money, pentax, pentax lens, range, sigma, sigma or pentax, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
is a 18-200mm sigma a good swap for pentax 18-55mm and sigma 70-300mm? tomell Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 2 06-18-2010 09:36 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax AF-540FGZ Flash, Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6, Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3 davebest Sold Items 12 06-25-2009 02:48 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Lens Blowout; 50mm 1.4, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 400mm, etc. nufenstein Sold Items 13 03-30-2009 12:00 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:28 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