Sigma or Pentax 17-70?

heatherslightbox · 02-09-2009, 04:50 PM

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

nomadkng · 02-09-2009, 05:40 PM

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.

audiobomber · 02-09-2009, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by hwblanks

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

Originally posted by hwblanks

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.

creampuff · 02-09-2009, 08:51 PM

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.

heatherslightbox · 02-10-2009, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

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

heatherslightbox · 02-10-2009, 05:11 PM

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

JohnnyDop · 02-13-2009, 01:06 AM

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

heatherslightbox · 02-13-2009, 05:06 AM

Was your page absolutely flat? Judging by the lighting and a little bit of distortion, it looks it it might not be.

Heather

JohnnyDop · 02-13-2009, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by hwblanks

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.

systemA · 02-13-2009, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by JohnnyDop

The page was flat.

It's also possible that the camera was tilted.

kenyee · 02-13-2009, 07:15 PM

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...

heatherslightbox · 02-15-2009, 03:14 PM

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.

Parallax · 02-15-2009, 04:07 PM

I have been using the Pentax 17-70 for a few months now and I love it.

crispy0009 · 02-17-2009, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

I have been using the Pentax 17-70 for a few months now and I love it.

Nice to know!

asdf · 02-17-2009, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by hwblanks

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.

View Poll Results: Is the Pentax 17-70 worth the extra cost over the price of a Sigma 17-70?
Yes	53	54.08%
No	45	45.92%
Voters: 98. You may not vote on this poll

02-09-2009, 05:40 PM	#17
nomadkng Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,448	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.

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

02-09-2009, 04:50 PM	#16
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599 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, 07:02 PM	#18
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by hwblanks 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 Originally posted by hwblanks 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
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	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
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599 Original Poster	Originally posted by creampuff 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
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599 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
JohnnyDop 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
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599 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
JohnnyDop New Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 16	Originally posted by hwblanks 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
systemA Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: New York, NY Posts: 385	Originally posted by JohnnyDop The page was flat. It's also possible that the camera was tilted.

02-13-2009, 07:15 PM	#26
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	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
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599 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
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	I have been using the Pentax 17-70 for a few months now and I love it.

02-17-2009, 03:56 AM	#29
crispy0009 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Palm Beach Gardens, FLORIDA Posts: 62	Originally posted by Parallax 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
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by hwblanks 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.