DA* 16-50mm or Sigma 18-50mm F2.8

CrazyNuts · 10-19-2009, 02:10 AM

Hi Everyone

I currently own a Sigma EX DG 18-50mm f/2.8 lens and am considering selling that and going the Pentax lens instead.

I am just wondering if I will notice ANY benefit at all.

Is the Pentax lens a Macro like the Sigma?
Does the Pentax focus any faster?
Is the IQ any better than the Sigma?

Thank you in advance for your advice.

pschlute · 10-19-2009, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by CrazyNuts

Hi Everyone

I currently own a Sigma EX DG 18-50mm f/2.8 lens and am considering selling that and going the Pentax lens instead.

I am just wondering if I will notice ANY benefit at all.

Is the Pentax lens a Macro like the Sigma?
Does the Pentax focus any faster?
Is the IQ any better than the Sigma?

Thank you in advance for your advice.

I have never used the Sigma, so cannot do a comparison, but I can tell you:

The DA* 16-50 has a minimum focus distance of 0.30 of a metre.

I would describe the AF (USM) of the 16-50 as on the slow side.

I would describe the image quality of the 16-50 as outstanding.

Have a look on my flickr site to see recent pictures (Yellowstone) taken with it

Ben_Edict · 10-19-2009, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by CrazyNuts

Hi Everyone

I currently own a Sigma EX DG 18-50mm f/2.8 lens and am considering selling that and going the Pentax lens instead.

I am just wondering if I will notice ANY benefit at all.

Is the Pentax lens a Macro like the Sigma?
Does the Pentax focus any faster?
Is the IQ any better than the Sigma?

I have gone exactly the same route, just that I also kept the Sigma - which is a lucky incidence, as my Pentax gave up mechanically after four months and is in repair...

There are three advantages of ther Pentax DA over the Sigma:
1. it is noticeably wider with 16mm minimum fl. This saves a lot of lens changing for me.
2. the feel of the lens is certainly that of better built. But as reality shows, the Sigma never broke down, the Pentax did.
3. the SDM is really silent. I value that highly.

The advantages of the Sigma (I have the older non-Macro version) are:
1. low price
2. smaller with smaller filter thread (67mm compared to the Pentax' 77mm)
3. robust

In terms of sharpness I cannot find much of a difference. In terms of contrast they are also pretty much en par.

There is a slight difference in colour rendition. But I guess, this is highly subjective and I did not do any measurements. So I find the Pentax delivers slightly more vivid and pleasing colours. But nothing one could not adjust with presets during RAW-processing.

The wider angle of the Pentax and the silent operation were worth the investment for me, but that does not say, that it is a "better" lens. On the other hand, the Sigma is easier to carry around and takes up less space in the photo bag, which can be an advantage of its own.

Ben

CrazyNuts · 10-19-2009, 02:50 PM

Think I'll stick with my Sigma in that case.

I can't justify spending double the cost of the Sigma on the Pentax here in AU, especially when you consider IQ between the two is almost identical.

Oh well

Thanks to everyone for their replies.

713alan · 10-19-2009, 08:27 PM

I went with the Sigma for many of the reasons Ben mentions.

However I just bought the Pentax. Now I'll lose money selling the Sigma. If you even think the Pentax is nice, get it or you lose out buying the Sigma, selling it, then buying the Pentax. I just learned that. PM me with an offer on the Sigma if you want to go that route (out for a week, with the Pentax, so don't expect a quick response).

CrazyNuts · 10-19-2009, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by 713alan

I went with the Sigma for many of the reasons Ben mentions.

However I just bought the Pentax. Now I'll lose money selling the Sigma. If you even think the Pentax is nice, get it or you lose out buying the Sigma, selling it, then buying the Pentax. I just learned that. PM me with an offer on the Sigma if you want to go that route (out for a week, with the Pentax, so don't expect a quick response).

I'm sorry, your post didn't make any sense to me

I already own the sigma (had it for 18 months), I was just thinking about going Pentax.

**EsBee** · 10-20-2009, 07:16 AM

Although not quite the same as Sigma, I had a Pentax 16-45 f4 for nearly 10 months before buying a used but excellent copy of the 16-50 f2.8 just a few weeks ago.

I find the 16-50 to be as capable as or better than the 16-45 in just about everything, plus it does a fabulous job as a portrait lens with a slightly increased reach, and I find photos to be extremely sharp even wide open at the long end.

The SDM and weather sealing, of course, are a bonus but even otherwise, I think the 16-50 is a great lens and I am happy to have bought my first DA*.

**manishved** · 10-20-2009, 10:28 AM

Interesting conversation here...I am in the same situation - bought the DA * 50-135 and love it - need to replace the kit lens with something faster

ThorThum · 10-20-2009, 05:08 PM

I'm interested in this discussion as well. I bought my Sigma 18-50 2.8 used shortly after buying my k200d and have suffered some remorse,( or grass is greener syndrome.) I mean to say, although it is my favorite walk- around lens I wonder if my money would have been better spent with the Pentax 16-50 2.8. I bought the Sigma based off of some reviews, and found it used from Amazon, for a fraction of the cost of the Pentax. -But- the SDM, weathersealing, and IQ of the Pentax is really attractive. Even though I have never read of any comparison between the two in relation to IQ. -Then- there's the QC problems that are all over the place about the Pentax. It seems you have a 50/50 chance of getting a good copy, with out centering defects, and if you do there is an eminant possibility of the SDM failing. This makes me think that I should be happy with what I have, besides the fact I'm broke. If there were not much difference in IQ, than I might be content to sit tight until I hit the lottery.

**Ash** · 10-20-2009, 05:16 PM

Never having tried the Sigma, I can't make any form of comparison, but I will add to the number of users who are happy with the Pentax 16-50.

Macro? Not really, but is close focus-capable.
Focusing? Not faster, but probably similar as a screw-drive lens in the same focal range (like the DA 16-45)
IQ? Here is where the 16-50 shines IMO. Microcontrast, colours and 3D effect are all pertinent in results from the 16-50. My examples of this are here: Portraits - a set on Flickr (except for the first photo in the collection)

dreamnet · 10-20-2009, 05:19 PM

i bought DA* 16-50 from ritz, quite good

CrazyNuts · 10-20-2009, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Never having tried the Sigma, I can't make any form of comparison, but I will add to the number of users who are happy with the Pentax 16-50.

Macro? Not really, but is close focus-capable.
Focusing? Not faster, but probably similar as a screw-drive lens in the same focal range (like the DA 16-45)
IQ? Here is where the 16-50 shines IMO. Microcontrast, colours and 3D effect are all pertinent in results from the 16-50. My examples of this are here: Portraits - a set on Flickr (except for the first photo in the collection)

Thanks for your link

To be honest, I get very similar results with my Sigma as you do with the Pentax.

The cost of the Pentax here in AU is currently DOUBLE of the Sigma, though I can't say there is double the difference in IQ between the two.

I will definitely be keeping my Sigma until I find something better for a similar price.

10-19-2009, 02:10 AM	#1
CrazyNuts Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 180	*DA 16-50mm or Sigma 18-50mm F2.8** Hi Everyone I currently own a Sigma EX DG 18-50mm f/2.8 lens and am considering selling that and going the Pentax lens instead. I am just wondering if I will notice ANY benefit at all. Is the Pentax lens a Macro like the Sigma? Does the Pentax focus any faster? Is the IQ any better than the Sigma? Thank you in advance for your advice.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wanted - Acquired: Pentax FA-50mm 1.7 or F-50mm 1.7, Sigma 50mm EX 1.4	vtqanh	Sold Items	1	11-03-2010 04:24 PM
Wanted - Acquired: Tamron 17-50mm, Sigma 18-50mm, Pentax 16-45mm, or similar	Big I	Sold Items	1	06-05-2010 12:12 PM
Whats A Better Fast Prime? The Sigma 50mm Or Pentax FA 50MM? Or Another Option?	Christopher M.W.T	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	10-01-2009 08:02 AM
Part 2: Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX Macro vs Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 - Brick Wall test (CROPS)	eva2000	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	12-21-2008 08:43 AM
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX Macro vs Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 - Brick Wall test	eva2000	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	12-13-2008 11:47 PM

10-19-2009, 02:55 AM	#2
pschlute Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Surrey, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,202	Originally posted by CrazyNuts Hi Everyone I currently own a Sigma EX DG 18-50mm f/2.8 lens and am considering selling that and going the Pentax lens instead. I am just wondering if I will notice ANY benefit at all. Is the Pentax lens a Macro like the Sigma? Does the Pentax focus any faster? Is the IQ any better than the Sigma? Thank you in advance for your advice. I have never used the Sigma, so cannot do a comparison, but I can tell you: The DA* 16-50 has a minimum focus distance of 0.30 of a metre. I would describe the AF (USM) of the 16-50 as on the slow side. I would describe the image quality of the 16-50 as outstanding. Have a look on my flickr site to see recent pictures (Yellowstone) taken with it

10-19-2009, 03:12 AM	#3
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by CrazyNuts Hi Everyone I currently own a Sigma EX DG 18-50mm f/2.8 lens and am considering selling that and going the Pentax lens instead. I am just wondering if I will notice ANY benefit at all. Is the Pentax lens a Macro like the Sigma? Does the Pentax focus any faster? Is the IQ any better than the Sigma? I have gone exactly the same route, just that I also kept the Sigma - which is a lucky incidence, as my Pentax gave up mechanically after four months and is in repair... There are three advantages of ther Pentax DA over the Sigma: 1. it is noticeably wider with 16mm minimum fl. This saves a lot of lens changing for me. 2. the feel of the lens is certainly that of better built. But as reality shows, the Sigma never broke down, the Pentax did. 3. the SDM is really silent. I value that highly. The advantages of the Sigma (I have the older non-Macro version) are: 1. low price 2. smaller with smaller filter thread (67mm compared to the Pentax' 77mm) 3. robust In terms of sharpness I cannot find much of a difference. In terms of contrast they are also pretty much en par. There is a slight difference in colour rendition. But I guess, this is highly subjective and I did not do any measurements. So I find the Pentax delivers slightly more vivid and pleasing colours. But nothing one could not adjust with presets during RAW-processing. The wider angle of the Pentax and the silent operation were worth the investment for me, but that does not say, that it is a "better" lens. On the other hand, the Sigma is easier to carry around and takes up less space in the photo bag, which can be an advantage of its own. Ben

10-19-2009, 02:50 PM	#4
CrazyNuts Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 180 Original Poster	Think I'll stick with my Sigma in that case. I can't justify spending double the cost of the Sigma on the Pentax here in AU, especially when you consider IQ between the two is almost identical. Oh well Thanks to everyone for their replies.

10-19-2009, 08:27 PM	#5
713alan Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Houston Posts: 46	I went with the Sigma for many of the reasons Ben mentions. However I just bought the Pentax. Now I'll lose money selling the Sigma. If you even think the Pentax is nice, get it or you lose out buying the Sigma, selling it, then buying the Pentax. I just learned that. PM me with an offer on the Sigma if you want to go that route (out for a week, with the Pentax, so don't expect a quick response).

10-19-2009, 08:34 PM	#6
CrazyNuts Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 180 Original Poster	Originally posted by 713alan I went with the Sigma for many of the reasons Ben mentions. However I just bought the Pentax. Now I'll lose money selling the Sigma. If you even think the Pentax is nice, get it or you lose out buying the Sigma, selling it, then buying the Pentax. I just learned that. PM me with an offer on the Sigma if you want to go that route (out for a week, with the Pentax, so don't expect a quick response). I'm sorry, your post didn't make any sense to me I already own the sigma (had it for 18 months), I was just thinking about going Pentax.

10-20-2009, 07:16 AM	#7
EsBee Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: National Capital Region Posts: 739	Although not quite the same as Sigma, I had a Pentax 16-45 f4 for nearly 10 months before buying a used but excellent copy of the 16-50 f2.8 just a few weeks ago. I find the 16-50 to be as capable as or better than the 16-45 in just about everything, plus it does a fabulous job as a portrait lens with a slightly increased reach, and I find photos to be extremely sharp even wide open at the long end. The SDM and weather sealing, of course, are a bonus but even otherwise, I think the 16-50 is a great lens and I am happy to have bought my first DA*.

10-20-2009, 10:28 AM	#8
manishved Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: N. Calif Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,651	Interesting conversation here...I am in the same situation - bought the DA * 50-135 and love it - need to replace the kit lens with something faster

10-20-2009, 05:08 PM	#9
ThorThum Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Flagstaff, Az Photos: Gallery Posts: 234	I'm interested in this discussion as well. I bought my Sigma 18-50 2.8 used shortly after buying my k200d and have suffered some remorse,( or grass is greener syndrome.) I mean to say, although it is my favorite walk- around lens I wonder if my money would have been better spent with the Pentax 16-50 2.8. I bought the Sigma based off of some reviews, and found it used from Amazon, for a fraction of the cost of the Pentax. -But- the SDM, weathersealing, and IQ of the Pentax is really attractive. Even though I have never read of any comparison between the two in relation to IQ. -Then- there's the QC problems that are all over the place about the Pentax. It seems you have a 50/50 chance of getting a good copy, with out centering defects, and if you do there is an eminant possibility of the SDM failing. This makes me think that I should be happy with what I have, besides the fact I'm broke. If there were not much difference in IQ, than I might be content to sit tight until I hit the lottery.

10-20-2009, 05:16 PM	#10
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Never having tried the Sigma, I can't make any form of comparison, but I will add to the number of users who are happy with the Pentax 16-50. Macro? Not really, but is close focus-capable. Focusing? Not faster, but probably similar as a screw-drive lens in the same focal range (like the DA 16-45) IQ? Here is where the 16-50 shines IMO. Microcontrast, colours and 3D effect are all pertinent in results from the 16-50. My examples of this are here: Portraits - a set on Flickr (except for the first photo in the collection)

10-20-2009, 05:19 PM	#11
dreamnet Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 95	i bought DA* 16-50 from ritz, quite good

10-20-2009, 06:21 PM	#12
CrazyNuts Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 180 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ash Never having tried the Sigma, I can't make any form of comparison, but I will add to the number of users who are happy with the Pentax 16-50. Macro? Not really, but is close focus-capable. Focusing? Not faster, but probably similar as a screw-drive lens in the same focal range (like the DA 16-45) IQ? Here is where the 16-50 shines IMO. Microcontrast, colours and 3D effect are all pertinent in results from the 16-50. My examples of this are here: Portraits - a set on Flickr (except for the first photo in the collection) Thanks for your link To be honest, I get very similar results with my Sigma as you do with the Pentax. The cost of the Pentax here in AU is currently DOUBLE of the Sigma, though I can't say there is double the difference in IQ between the two. I will definitely be keeping my Sigma until I find something better for a similar price.