[palmor]

Just my 2 cents I bought the Sigma a while ago and was disappointed with the IQ at f/2.8 @200mm and returned it. Part of this was because I used to own the older non-DG, non-Macro version of this lens which was (at least my copy) outstanding at all apertures and focal ranges. The other thing I ran into was that it would misfocus when close to the min focusing distance (see dpreview review of this lens).

Anyway there are a lot of happy people with this lens so maybe it was just my copy.. or maybe I was so disappointed when comparing it to my older version that I couldn't see that it was decent on its own.




John

[thelittlecar]

Thanks to everyone for their advice! I have decided on the Pentax 50-135 2.8 lens. I know there are many people who are happy with their Sigma lens but after reading so many negative posts and then being fortunate enough to unexpectedly get some face to face advice from a local pro I feel more comfortable with the Pentax glass. So right or wrong thats it in a nutshell. Thanks again to everyone!

[GLXLR]

Thanks to everyone for their advice! I have decided on the Pentax 50-135 2.8 lens. I know there are many people who are happy with their Sigma lens but after reading so many negative posts and then being fortunate enough to unexpectedly get some face to face advice from a local pro I feel more comfortable with the Pentax glass. So right or wrong thats it in a nutshell. Thanks again to everyone!

Great choice. You definitely won't be disappointed with it, although if you need more range consider the DA200mm f/2.8 with TC or DA 300mm f/4.

[stageseven88]

Def BUY!
I had it for my Nikon D90 and for the price and function.
You can't beat it! I'm getting one for my K-x next months
One lens you can not live without.
Sucker is heavy so be careful.

[Lowell Goudge]

I wanted to get a telephoto lens that I could use for indoor high school volleyball with my Pentax K20D camera. I am planning to purchase the lens this week. Initially I was going to get the Pentax SMC DA Series 50-135mm f/2.8 but after some reading and thinking I thought I might appreciate the extra reach of the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II APO HSM lens.

As of late, however, I have discovered several people who have commented on poor performance at 2.8 and a high failure rate of the HSM motor on the Sigma. And also at least one person who sent back two lenses for some alleged actual glass defects. I know that Tamron makes a similar lens which from all accounts is optically better than the Sigma but the Tamron autofocus appears to be too slow for sports. In all fairness to Sigma I will say that most of the negative posts seem to be older as in the tail end of 2008 and some in the spring of this year. After that feedback, both positive and negative, seems to trail off for some reason.

So with volleyball season starting in 2 weeks and only enough $$$ to do this once I am looking for some opinions as to whether to should go for the Sigma or get the Pentax lens and live with a little less reach. Thanks!

why not look for a used non HSM sigma. I have the origonal APO 70-200F2.8 (no macro, no DG (rear element coatings) and it does great indoors and out. You can also get TCs for this to give more reach. I don't think sigma has an HSM TC for pentax yet.

p-s mine is now 6 years old and still working great

[cupic]

I would go the way of the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 fast focus in daylight with TC and indoor go manual focus if it wants to hunt but basically a good all round package


cheers

[Lowell Goudge]

Just my 2 cents I bought the Sigma a while ago and was disappointed with the IQ at f/2.8 @200mm and returned it. Part of this was because I used to own the older non-DG, non-Macro version of this lens which was (at least my copy) outstanding at all apertures and focal ranges. The other thing I ran into was that it would misfocus when close to the min focusing distance (see dpreview review of this lens).

Anyway there are a lot of happy people with this lens so maybe it was just my copy.. or maybe I was so disappointed when comparing it to my older version that I couldn't see that it was decent on its own.




John

that's why I have never upgraded. I own the same non dg non macro version, and after 6 years it still surprises me at all apertures and focal lengths