Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-02-2009, 07:09 AM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Reykjavik
Posts: 6
Afraid to buy 16-50

Hi

I'm using a Sigma superzoom 18-200 but I want more quality in the wide range, so I thought the much talked about Pentax 16-50mm might be a good choice.

So I ask:

1: Will I be getting better image quality from the Pentax than the Sigma?

2: I the Pentax a good lens? I've read so many "horror stories" about bad copies

3: Have you tried the relatively new Sigma 10-20mm F3.5?

Thanks

08-02-2009, 07:44 AM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Prince George, BC Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 644
QuoteOriginally posted by DurDur Quote
Hi

I'm using a Sigma superzoom 18-200 but I want more quality in the wide range, so I thought the much talked about Pentax 16-50mm might be a good choice.

So I ask:

1: Will I be getting better image quality from the Pentax than the Sigma?

2: I the Pentax a good lens? I've read so many "horror stories" about bad copies

3: Have you tried the relatively new Sigma 10-20mm F3.5?

Thanks
To answer your last question first ...No! I have not used the Sigma 10-20 but you can not compare that with the 16-50 ...the Pentax is a standard zoom and the Sigma a very wide zoom.

I have had no problem with my 16-50 and I suspect those that report problems are a very small but very vocal percentage of owners. I also suspect many of them are finding fault where none really exist. In fact, I have never had any problem with any Pentax gear I have bought over the last 30 years ...so I would not be hesitant about buying the 16-50 if I were you.
08-02-2009, 07:45 AM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,368
QuoteOriginally posted by DurDur Quote
Hi

I'm using a Sigma superzoom 18-200 but I want more quality in the wide range, so I thought the much talked about Pentax 16-50mm might be a good choice.

So I ask:

1: Will I be getting better image quality from the Pentax than the Sigma?

2: I the Pentax a good lens? I've read so many "horror stories" about bad copies

3: Have you tried the relatively new Sigma 10-20mm F3.5?

Thanks
1. I haven't used the Sigma superzoom that you own, but I I don't think I'm going out on too much of a limb saying that Yes the DA*16-50 does have better image quality than your superzoom.

2. I find mine to be a good lens, but I bought mine recently, well after the quality control problems were at their highest point.

3. I have not tried the Sigma 10-20, but I have read a lot of good things about it from happy users.

Finally, from what you're describing for your lens needs, the DA* 16-50 might be a little too much cost and quality for what you need. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens is supposedly very good, with less quality control problems, and it is about $200 cheaper (potentially more or less than this depending on your location) than the 16-50. Also, you could look at the DA16-45 from Pentax, a really solid lens that served me well for a long time. I'm only selling mine now because I bought the DA* 16-50.
08-02-2009, 07:48 AM   #4
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by DurDur Quote
Hi

I'm using a Sigma superzoom 18-200 but I want more quality in the wide range, so I thought the much talked about Pentax 16-50mm might be a good choice.

So I ask:
QuoteQuote:
1: Will I be getting better image quality from the Pentax than the Sigma?
yes.
QuoteQuote:
2: I the Pentax a good lens? I've read so many "horror stories" about bad copies
When they are good, they are very good indeed. I suspect that people's tendency to bitch and whine about equipment that isn't perfect vs not saying anything at all when it words as planned has a lot to do with the lens sounding like a risk.
However, if you get a bad one, send it back for replacement until you get a good one. The pre release one that I had on loan from Pentax was excellent.
QuoteQuote:
3: Have you tried the relatively new Sigma 10-20mm F3.5?
Personally, I wouldn't buy a Sigma lens
QuoteQuote:
Thanks
Yer welcome.

08-02-2009, 08:34 AM   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
blackcloudbrew's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cotati, California USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,782
My DA*16-50 is a excellent lens and is my most favorite. I read the horror stories before I bought mine and have been pleasently surprized that none of those rang true with mine.

The only Sigma lens I own is an 18-125 zoom which I have always been impressed with the quality of the build and IQ.

As I also have the Pentax DA 10-17 fisheye, I really haven't thought much about a 10-20mm from anyone so I can't comment there.

My bottom line is that the DA*16-50 is my main lens and most favorite for most situations.
08-02-2009, 08:42 AM   #6
emr
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by DurDur Quote
3: Have you tried the relatively new Sigma 10-20mm F3.5?
I don't think this f/3.5 lens is available yet in K mount. The first reviews in for example Nikon mount are just surfacing.
08-02-2009, 08:51 AM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ontario
Posts: 750
QuoteOriginally posted by DurDur Quote
Hi

I'm using a Sigma superzoom 18-200 but I want more quality in the wide range, so I thought the much talked about Pentax 16-50mm might be a good choice.

So I ask:

1: Will I be getting better image quality from the Pentax than the Sigma?

2: I the Pentax a good lens? I've read so many "horror stories" about bad copies

3: Have you tried the relatively new Sigma 10-20mm F3.5?

Thanks
1) I've never compared the Pentax to any sigma lens. However, you'll be getting very good image quality.

2) Yes, the 16-50 is a good lens. However, this wasn't a lens I was going to buy off the internet. I went to the store and tried it out first. I would recommend you do the same and decide for yourself.

3) No, and I have no intentions either because with an 82mm filter thread, it's just that much bigger and my filter collection is already close to being too small (cokin P sized). I will eventually go with the older version in the next year or so if Pentax doesn't come out with a sealed UWA zoom.
08-02-2009, 10:02 AM   #8
Pentaxian
Miguel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,697
1. Superzooms are not considered high quality optically. They can be quite good but not professional quality.

2, When I needed a lens in this range I intentionally bypassed the DA* because of all the QC issues. I would do as recommended above and test one retail or buy one with sane return policies. The Tamron 17-50mm is about as good and much cheaper.

3. Ultra-wide zooms are for different purposes. The DA 12-24mm is about as near-prime quality as you are gonna find. Outstanding. It's big and fairly heavy though.

M

08-02-2009, 10:15 AM   #9
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada eh!
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 674
Get the 16-50, you won't regret it. It's the lens that is primarily on my camera as my "quick I've got to get a photo" lens. Excellent quality, excellent build, excellent lens.
08-02-2009, 11:09 AM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,944
I can't tell you much about Sigmas except that the couple that I've used tend to rend colors a lot colder than what I'm used to with my Pentax lenses. Sure I could photo shop it all later and get similar results, but I would rather have the colors I expect straight out of the camera.

As far as the DA* 16-50 goes, I have a good copy and it is excellent. I think most of the problems were early on and there are many fewer complaints now, but I would still shoot quite a bit with it right after you get it to be certain there aren't problems (you should do this with any lens). If there were problems (decentering) it would be really easy to tell right away that there was a problem.

I definitely say go for it.
08-02-2009, 11:59 AM   #11
Veteran Member
nulla's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 1,560
QuoteOriginally posted by Leaf Fan Quote
Get the 16-50, you won't regret it. It's the lens that is primarily on my camera as my "quick I've got to get a photo" lens. Excellent quality, excellent build, excellent lens.
Same here


Neil
08-02-2009, 12:27 PM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Auckland
Posts: 553
QuoteOriginally posted by Leaf Fan Quote
Get the 16-50, you won't regret it. It's the lens that is primarily on my camera as my "quick I've got to get a photo" lens. Excellent quality, excellent build, excellent lens.
Same for me! Occasionally I think to myself I could have spent less money and got a slightly slower lens... and then I remember a few favourite photos which were taken f2.8 which I otherwise would not have.

And then there are the times I go outside in the rain...
08-02-2009, 01:41 PM   #13
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,678
Get a new 16-50 if you're so worried about getting a dud - you at least have the chance to review it yourself and decide that it's a good copy or not.

Fear that stops you from getting the lens that's best suited to you is counterproductive.
08-02-2009, 01:44 PM   #14
Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 703
I had the same doubts as you about the 16-50. I did buy it and am very glad I did. Excellent lens in all respects. I got 3 pictures in the PPG in quick succession withing the first month with this lens!

But do follow the other advice given here. Support a real "store" where you can check out the lens before you buy.
08-02-2009, 02:37 PM   #15
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
When they are good, they are very good indeed. I suspect that people's tendency to bitch and whine about equipment that isn't perfect vs not saying anything at all when it words as planned has a lot to do with the lens sounding like a risk.Yer welcome.

Personally, I find the 16-50/2.8 quite awful when it comes to flare....
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, pentax, pentax lens, quality, sigma, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone else afraid of robots? szurinaga General Talk 11 07-13-2010 07:13 PM
Black & White afraid of walking Corros Photo Critique 6 01-21-2010 12:27 AM
Who's afraid of spiders? davebris33 Photographic Technique 17 09-15-2008 09:32 PM
Not Afraid of Heights Mike Cash Post Your Photos! 10 06-30-2008 05:45 AM
Be afraid, be very very afraid little laker Post Your Photos! 5 06-07-2007 05:20 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:34 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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