16-45 f4 vs sigma 18-50 f2.8

buky · 02-24-2009, 10:47 AM

Which one is better. I have already 16-45 f4 and its just nice and sharp lens.
Now i'm considering to buy Sigma 18-50 f2.8 because of f2.8.

Is this nice lens? Is it sharper than 16-45?

Thanks

Jim Royal · 02-24-2009, 10:55 AM

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 is a fine lens. Is is better than the 16-45? I can't say, not having owned it. I can give you some sample shots, however, taken with the Sigma. Be sure to click to see the full-size versions, as Flickr's scaling can soften images.

Griffintown Morning on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Dock in the Fog on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Victoria Bridge and Little Dock on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

High Tension on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I can certainly say having the extra stop is handy when shooting candid shots indoors. It depends on what you like to shoot.

snigelben · 02-24-2009, 11:55 AM

I have the 18-50 macro but not the 16-45, so I cant say much about how they compare. But regarding the Sigma it is a pretty good lens. To my taste the sharpness isn't quite there at 2.8, at least at the long end, unless you want a softer image, for instance when shooting portraits. At f4 it is fine though and from 5.6 it is quite exceptional. But even if i tend to use it as an f4 lens much like the 16-45, it still gives you the benefit of a brighter viewfinder. This helps manual focus when that is more convenient and, which is also quite good, makes it a little easier to see what is going on in the picture, like subtle facial expressions and such. The bokeh is quite nice. The "macro" function is also really helpful sometimes, and it can make for very nice close-ups of flowers and stuff. Contrast and colour are not quite on par with my old pentax primes but not bad either. regarding actual focal lenght it is shorter than my M50 1.7, at least at medium focal distances. It would be interesting to know how it compares with the 16-45 in that regard.

Hope that helps,
Erik

K100Dave · 02-24-2009, 05:55 PM

Every since I purchased the 16-45, it has been a tough time removing it from my camera bodies. It's just a very good no - nonsense lens, not to mention very sharp.

lesmore49 · 02-24-2009, 07:50 PM

I don't have or have I ever used the Sigma. But I do have the 16-45 lens and I've very satisfied with it's clarity, colour rendition and of course the end product...I have found is excellent.

I have Leitz lenses, Mamiya-Sekor, Olympus...etc....and with this experience with these other lens, I have to say the Pentax 16-45 is excellent.

Toshi · 02-24-2009, 07:50 PM

I've owned the Sigma. It's a great lens which I found to be sharp and color contrast was good. The f/2.8 was useful as well. If you won't miss the wide-angle, I'd recommend it. I sold mine to get a 12-24 since I wanted something wider. Hopefully f/4 is fast enough for my shooting. If your mainly doing landscapes though, the speed really isn't an issue.

asdf · 02-24-2009, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by buky

Which one is better. I have already 16-45 f4 and its just nice and sharp lens.
Now i'm considering to buy Sigma 18-50 f2.8 because of f2.8.

Is this nice lens? Is it sharper than 16-45?

Thanks

DA 17-70 is a better deal than both, if you care about AF motor noise. The Nikon mount version of Sigma 18-50 has HSM and sells for the same price as the Pentax mount version which lacks HSM. So if I had a Nikon camera, I'd consider it. If you want sharper, consider DA 40. Good luck.

MShawn63 · 02-25-2009, 09:55 AM

Dave, your photograph of the flower with the 16-45 is amazing. I have the Sigma 28-70 2.8 and keep wondering if I should trade it in and get the 16-45. While I'd give up the speed and the reach to 70mm, which is covered by my 50-135 (which I LOVE), I'd also be giving up the weight of the bloody thing. The Sigma is a great lens but it's heavy and carrying it around all day is painful over time. Once again I'm going to have to think this one through.

Thanks for sharing
Shawn

buky · 02-25-2009, 01:21 PM

Thanks guys

FotoPete · 02-25-2009, 01:48 PM

Wow those colours and gorgeous! The DA16-45 is very sharp and the contrast is just amazing. My friend (shoots Oly 4/3rds) tested my DA16-45 on a Pentax film body and was pleasantly wowed by the 'Pentax Colours'

spade111 · 02-26-2009, 02:43 AM

Hey guys,

Just thought I'd thrown my opinion into the mix.

I own the 18-50mm sigma macro dgII
the pentax 16-45mm,
and the (very excited to have this back) pentax DA* 16-50mm
I also have a 24mm FA* that I use for comparison purposes.

I bought them all with a couple of K10D bodies, and planned to keep two of the best three... long story. Both bodies were fuubed, and the DA* was soft, and disappointingly back focusing etc. After two trips to pentax, I've got my stuff back - both bodies had effectively completely replaced internals, and the 16-50mm that I really wanted to love, has been replaced with a... PERFECT copy!!!

Anyhow, my copy of the sigma 18-50mm is stellar. It is about as sharp and contrasty as my new 16-50mm (and was leaps and bounds ahead of the old one). I'd say wide open it might have the edge in low contrast light... but I don't want to spoil my new DA* It is FANTASTIC - Thank-you pentax!!! Worth waiting for I must say... however I missed many photos with the old one.

The 16-45mm doesn't ever get used... but while I was working it out, I found it to be pretty good at f4. Not really in the same league as my copy of the sigma... but again I think that one is a mutant.

If any of you like, I can do a shot for shot comparo - let me know what you'd like to see.

Ben_Edict · 02-26-2009, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by spade111

Hey guys,

Just thought I'd thrown my opinion into the mix.

I own the 18-50mm sigma macro dgII
the pentax 16-45mm,
and the (very excited to have this back) pentax DA* 16-50mm
I also have a 24mm FA* that I use for comparison purposes.

I bought them all with a couple of K10D bodies, and planned to keep two of the best three... long story. Both bodies were fuubed, and the DA* was soft, and disappointingly back focusing etc. After two trips to pentax, I've got my stuff back - both bodies had effectively completely replaced internals, and the 16-50mm that I really wanted to love, has been replaced with a... PERFECT copy!!!

Anyhow, my copy of the sigma 18-50mm is stellar. It is about as sharp and contrasty as my new 16-50mm (and was leaps and bounds ahead of the old one). I'd say wide open it might have the edge in low contrast light... but I don't want to spoil my new DA* It is FANTASTIC - Thank-you pentax!!! Worth waiting for I must say... however I missed many photos with the old one.

The 16-45mm doesn't ever get used... but while I was working it out, I found it to be pretty good at f4. Not really in the same league as my copy of the sigma... but again I think that one is a mutant.

If any of you like, I can do a shot for shot comparo - let me know what you'd like to see.

That's interesting, as I have the older Sigma 18-50/2.8 non-macro version (and also the Pentax 16-50 and the FA24/2), which is really sharp from 2.8 onwards. I love it and only bought the DA 16-50 because of the silent SDM and ofcourse the 16mm appreciably wider end. The Sigma is a no-nonsense lens: sharp, contrast very good if stepped down to f/4 and beyond, fast AF and nicely made. On top it is much smaller than the DA 16-50.

The DA 16-50 has one advantage apart from the wider angle of view and this its near three-dimensional rendering. I war really surprised by it, but it has a very nice rendering, the objects in focus really stand out.

I cannot compare the Sigma to the 16-45/4, because I always found that lens too slow for being my standard zoom, but the Sigma is sure a nice lens and I used it heavily over the more than three years since I bought it.

Ben

iNVision ART · 02-26-2009, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by spade111

If any of you like, I can do a shot for shot comparo - let me know what you'd like to see.

If possible, coud you provide a shot for shot comparo??

TIA

benjikan · 02-26-2009, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by k100dave

every since i purchased the 16-45, it has been a tough time removing it from my camera bodies. It's just a very good no - nonsense lens, not to mention very sharp.

i love this shot...yummy! Looks good enough to eat!

Buddha Jones · 02-26-2009, 04:27 PM

A Ben Kanerek sighting.....

That lens is a work horse! I had one for a long time and when I 'upgraded' to the DA*16-50mm I didn't notice much gain in IQ but the f/2.8 is nice. I hear that the Sigma is OK, but hte 'Macro' version is much better as far as IQ is concerned. But all things considered I wold opt for the DA*!

02-24-2009, 10:47 AM	#1
buky Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 2	16-45 f4 vs sigma 18-50 f2.8 Which one is better. I have already 16-45 f4 and its just nice and sharp lens. Now i'm considering to buy Sigma 18-50 f2.8 because of f2.8. Is this nice lens? Is it sharper than 16-45? Thanks

02-24-2009, 10:55 AM	#2
Jim Royal Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 179	The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 is a fine lens. Is is better than the 16-45? I can't say, not having owned it. I can give you some sample shots, however, taken with the Sigma. Be sure to click to see the full-size versions, as Flickr's scaling can soften images. Griffintown Morning on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Dock in the Fog on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Victoria Bridge and Little Dock on Flickr - Photo Sharing! High Tension on Flickr - Photo Sharing! I can certainly say having the extra stop is handy when shooting candid shots indoors. It depends on what you like to shoot. Last edited by Jim Royal; 02-24-2009 at 11:16 AM.

02-26-2009, 02:43 AM	#11
spade111 Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: BC Posts: 93	re: sigma 18-50mm macro DG II Hey guys, Just thought I'd thrown my opinion into the mix. I own the 18-50mm sigma macro dgII the pentax 16-45mm, and the (very excited to have this back) pentax DA* 16-50mm I also have a 24mm FA* that I use for comparison purposes. I bought them all with a couple of K10D bodies, and planned to keep two of the best three... long story. Both bodies were fuubed, and the DA* was soft, and disappointingly back focusing etc. After two trips to pentax, I've got my stuff back - both bodies had effectively completely replaced internals, and the 16-50mm that I really wanted to love, has been replaced with a... PERFECT copy!!! Anyhow, my copy of the sigma 18-50mm is stellar. It is about as sharp and contrasty as my new 16-50mm (and was leaps and bounds ahead of the old one). I'd say wide open it might have the edge in low contrast light... but I don't want to spoil my new DA* It is FANTASTIC - Thank-you pentax!!! Worth waiting for I must say... however I missed many photos with the old one. The 16-45mm doesn't ever get used... but while I was working it out, I found it to be pretty good at f4. Not really in the same league as my copy of the sigma... but again I think that one is a mutant. If any of you like, I can do a shot for shot comparo - let me know what you'd like to see.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K20D, D-BG2 grip, Sigma 17-70, Sigma 10-20, SMC Takumar 1000mm	deadwolfbones	Sold Items	23	10-21-2009 02:57 PM
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
For Sale - Sold: FS: FA 77mm limited, Sigma 17-70mm DC Macro, Sigma 70-300mm APO DG	chemxaj	Sold Items	10	03-17-2008 08:55 AM

02-24-2009, 11:55 AM	#3
snigelben Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 34	I have the 18-50 macro but not the 16-45, so I cant say much about how they compare. But regarding the Sigma it is a pretty good lens. To my taste the sharpness isn't quite there at 2.8, at least at the long end, unless you want a softer image, for instance when shooting portraits. At f4 it is fine though and from 5.6 it is quite exceptional. But even if i tend to use it as an f4 lens much like the 16-45, it still gives you the benefit of a brighter viewfinder. This helps manual focus when that is more convenient and, which is also quite good, makes it a little easier to see what is going on in the picture, like subtle facial expressions and such. The bokeh is quite nice. The "macro" function is also really helpful sometimes, and it can make for very nice close-ups of flowers and stuff. Contrast and colour are not quite on par with my old pentax primes but not bad either. regarding actual focal lenght it is shorter than my M50 1.7, at least at medium focal distances. It would be interesting to know how it compares with the 16-45 in that regard. Hope that helps, Erik

02-24-2009, 05:55 PM	#4
K100Dave Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Omaha, NE Posts: 111	Every since I purchased the 16-45, it has been a tough time removing it from my camera bodies. It's just a very good no - nonsense lens, not to mention very sharp.

02-24-2009, 07:50 PM	#5
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,343	I don't have or have I ever used the Sigma. But I do have the 16-45 lens and I've very satisfied with it's clarity, colour rendition and of course the end product...I have found is excellent. I have Leitz lenses, Mamiya-Sekor, Olympus...etc....and with this experience with these other lens, I have to say the Pentax 16-45 is excellent.

02-24-2009, 07:50 PM	#6
Toshi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 431	I've owned the Sigma. It's a great lens which I found to be sharp and color contrast was good. The f/2.8 was useful as well. If you won't miss the wide-angle, I'd recommend it. I sold mine to get a 12-24 since I wanted something wider. Hopefully f/4 is fast enough for my shooting. If your mainly doing landscapes though, the speed really isn't an issue.

02-24-2009, 07:52 PM	#7
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by buky Which one is better. I have already 16-45 f4 and its just nice and sharp lens. Now i'm considering to buy Sigma 18-50 f2.8 because of f2.8. Is this nice lens? Is it sharper than 16-45? Thanks DA 17-70 is a better deal than both, if you care about AF motor noise. The Nikon mount version of Sigma 18-50 has HSM and sells for the same price as the Pentax mount version which lacks HSM. So if I had a Nikon camera, I'd consider it. If you want sharper, consider DA 40. Good luck.

02-25-2009, 09:55 AM	#8
MShawn63 Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 225	Dave, your photograph of the flower with the 16-45 is amazing. I have the Sigma 28-70 2.8 and keep wondering if I should trade it in and get the 16-45. While I'd give up the speed and the reach to 70mm, which is covered by my 50-135 (which I LOVE), I'd also be giving up the weight of the bloody thing. The Sigma is a great lens but it's heavy and carrying it around all day is painful over time. Once again I'm going to have to think this one through. Thanks for sharing Shawn

02-25-2009, 01:21 PM	#9
buky Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 2 Original Poster	Thanks guys

02-25-2009, 01:48 PM	#10
FotoPete Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,774	Wow those colours and gorgeous! The DA16-45 is very sharp and the contrast is just amazing. My friend (shoots Oly 4/3rds) tested my DA16-45 on a Pentax film body and was pleasantly wowed by the 'Pentax Colours'

02-26-2009, 03:18 AM	#12
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by spade111 Hey guys, Just thought I'd thrown my opinion into the mix. I own the 18-50mm sigma macro dgII the pentax 16-45mm, and the (very excited to have this back) pentax DA* 16-50mm I also have a 24mm FA* that I use for comparison purposes. I bought them all with a couple of K10D bodies, and planned to keep two of the best three... long story. Both bodies were fuubed, and the DA* was soft, and disappointingly back focusing etc. After two trips to pentax, I've got my stuff back - both bodies had effectively completely replaced internals, and the 16-50mm that I really wanted to love, has been replaced with a... PERFECT copy!!! Anyhow, my copy of the sigma 18-50mm is stellar. It is about as sharp and contrasty as my new 16-50mm (and was leaps and bounds ahead of the old one). I'd say wide open it might have the edge in low contrast light... but I don't want to spoil my new DA* It is FANTASTIC - Thank-you pentax!!! Worth waiting for I must say... however I missed many photos with the old one. The 16-45mm doesn't ever get used... but while I was working it out, I found it to be pretty good at f4. Not really in the same league as my copy of the sigma... but again I think that one is a mutant. If any of you like, I can do a shot for shot comparo - let me know what you'd like to see. That's interesting, as I have the older Sigma 18-50/2.8 non-macro version (and also the Pentax 16-50 and the FA24/2), which is really sharp from 2.8 onwards. I love it and only bought the DA 16-50 because of the silent SDM and ofcourse the 16mm appreciably wider end. The Sigma is a no-nonsense lens: sharp, contrast very good if stepped down to f/4 and beyond, fast AF and nicely made. On top it is much smaller than the DA 16-50. The DA 16-50 has one advantage apart from the wider angle of view and this its near three-dimensional rendering. I war really surprised by it, but it has a very nice rendering, the objects in focus really stand out. I cannot compare the Sigma to the 16-45/4, because I always found that lens too slow for being my standard zoom, but the Sigma is sure a nice lens and I used it heavily over the more than three years since I bought it. Ben

02-26-2009, 07:11 AM	#13
iNVision ART Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The 808 State: Hawaii. From Nikon to PENTAX to Canon to Pentax Photos: Gallery Posts: 71	Originally posted by spade111 If any of you like, I can do a shot for shot comparo - let me know what you'd like to see. If possible, coud you provide a shot for shot comparo?? TIA

02-26-2009, 04:17 PM	#14
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Originally posted by k100dave every since i purchased the 16-45, it has been a tough time removing it from my camera bodies. It's just a very good no - nonsense lens, not to mention very sharp. i love this shot...yummy! Looks good enough to eat!

02-26-2009, 04:27 PM	#15
Buddha Jones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,587	A Ben Kanerek sighting..... That lens is a work horse! I had one for a long time and when I 'upgraded' to the DA16-50mm I didn't notice much gain in IQ but the f/2.8 is nice. I hear that the Sigma is OK, but hte 'Macro' version is much better as far as IQ is concerned. But all things considered I wold opt for the DA!