Don't know what to buy

Richie1978 · 01-09-2010, 12:11 PM

Hi,

since weeks I can't decide what lense to buy.

Right now I have a Sigma 17-70 and Sigma 70-300. Since I used a USM lens (a friend of mine owns a Canon) I became addictet to the noiseless focusing.

I mainly do landscape shooting (mainly in the Southwest USA - where I go almost every vacation). This also means a lot of hiking.

So I can't decide between these two options:

Sell the Sigma 17-70 and buy the new Sigma 17-70 HSM because of the HSM
Sell the Sigma 70-300 and buy the DA 55-300 (because of the extra reach at the wide end).

Or:

Buy the Sigma 18-250 as a lens for traveling/hiking, sell the Sigma 70-300 (I don't need the Tele that often), and keep the Sigma 17-70 for the occasions where I can need the faster aperture.

The most reviews say that the Sigma 18-250 is about the same IQ like the DA 18-250. So if this is the case, do you think I will be disappointed by the image-quality compared to the lenses I own right now?

Thank you
Richie

Richie1978 · 01-10-2010, 04:59 AM

No one any suggestions?

Diffusion · 01-10-2010, 05:24 AM

It is a very personal decision. I would not buy the 55-300 for the wide-end in your case, but the better performance in the long zoom range above 200mm. If you do not need that range, the point becomes moot.
The old 17-70 goes down in max aperture fast, and in the long range (55-70, I think), it is slower than the Pentax at 4.5. The new 17-70 has its slowest at 4.0, just like the Pentax.

I am not a huge fan of variable aperture zooms, except for the inexpensive long zoom I rarely use. Therefore I would get the 24-70/2.8 HSM, which likely blows the 17-70 out of the water in terms of IQ. But I already have the 16-50 from Pentax, which is quiet enough for me.

If I understand your shooting correctly, I am not sure why you would buy the 18-250. It sounds like you shoot slightly wide/normal/slight tele, which the 17-70 does. If the reason why you do not use the 70-300 is lens changes, then by all means, the 18-250 is for you. If the 17-70 does not satisfy you in terms of aperture later on, get the 24-70 HSM, which is rather pricey.

asdf · 01-10-2010, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Richie1978

No one any suggestions?

If you only limit yourself to SDM/HSM lenses, you give us little to recommend.

DA 17-70 f/4 SDM is very good optically, but SDM is known to fail.

In any event, I have the (optically very good) Sigma 50 f/1.4 and its HSM still *works*...something I can't say about one of my SDM lenses.

Also, in landscape photography, you don't necessarily "need" AF, at all. So do consider primes without built-in motors.

Last edited by asdf; 01-10-2010 at 06:10 AM.

Richie1978 · 01-10-2010, 06:18 AM

Quote:

If I understand your shooting correctly, I am not sure why you would buy the 18-250. It sounds like you shoot slightly wide/normal/slight tele, which the 17-70 does. If the reason why you do not use the 70-300 is lens changes, then by all means, the 18-250 is for you. If the 17-70 does not satisfy you in terms of aperture later on, get the 24-70 HSM, which is rather pricey.

The main reason is, that on vacation we do a lot of hiking and it was sometimes really frustrating when you carry three lenses (10-24, 17-70 and 70-300) on a 12 mile hike in the backcountry of Utah (and I don't mean National Park, where there are food courts where you can rest, I'm talking about backcountry where you don't see a single human the whole day).

So the 18-250 would mean one lens less to carry around in such situation. I don't really need fast apertures as most of my pictures are made between f8 and f11 (somtimes f5.6).

But I'm a little bit afraid that the iq (in terms of sharpness) is much less than the Sigma 17-70.
This is what makes me unsure.

Regards,
Richie

asdf · 01-10-2010, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Richie1978

So the 18-250 would mean one lens less to carry around in such situation. I don't really need fast apertures as most of my pictures are made between f8 and f11 (somtimes f5.6).

A slow lens may hunt in bad weather because auto-focus systems don't like dim light/low contrast.

Quote:

But I'm a little bit afraid that the iq (in terms of sharpness) is much less than the Sigma 17-70.
This is what makes me unsure.

Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC (Pentax K) - Review / Test Report

Pentax SMC DA 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 ED AL [IF] - Review / Lab Test Report

Richie1978 · 01-10-2010, 06:30 AM

I have seen that tests, but I must admit that I'm not really good in interpreting such numbers

I would interpret it that way, that the Tamron 18-250 is not really less sharp, than 17-70 + 70-300 but I'm not sure about that.

asdf · 01-10-2010, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by Richie1978

I have seen that tests, but I must admit that I'm not really good in interpreting such numbers

I would interpret it that way, that the Tamron 18-250 is not really less sharp, than 17-70 + 70-300 but I'm not sure about that.

Too bad they didn't include sample shots for the super-zoom.

**Rondec** · 01-10-2010, 06:35 AM

Sounds to me like you should get an 18-250. Stopped down to f8, you would be hard pressed to separate the photos from a super zoom from your other lenses. The one exception is probably at the wide end where it will have more distortion than your 17-70. It certainly would be reasonable to get a Sigma with HSM if that is important to you, although the Pentax/Tamron 18-250 is quite a bit cheaper.

WerTicus · 01-10-2010, 07:03 AM

the DA55-300 is a lot better than the sigma...

rustynail925 · 01-10-2010, 07:13 AM

Sell the 70-300 and get a DA55-300mm
If you use macro Keep the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.5.. If not, The new Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 might be better

Richie1978 · 01-10-2010, 07:27 AM

This are two options im thinking about all the time:

Sigma 17-70 HSM instead of Sigma 17-70
DA 55-300 instead of Sigma 70-300

or keep the Simga 17-70 and the 70-300 and buy the 18-250 as an additional lens.

rustynail925 · 01-10-2010, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Richie1978

This are two options im thinking about all the time:

Sigma 17-70 HSM instead of Sigma 17-70
DA 55-300 instead of Sigma 70-300

or keep the Simga 17-70 and the 70-300 and buy the 18-250 as an additional lens.

Why would you buy a 18-250 since you've got that range covered by the 2 zooms. if you're thinking of getting the 18-250mm why not sell the 2 zooms
and a couple of primes instead. It would be helpful in low light

Richie1978 · 01-10-2010, 08:57 AM

I know that primes get you the best possible image quality. But I personally prefer zooms. I very seldom shot in low light situations (probably sometimes landscapes but then I use a tripod. Primes are not an option for me.

If I buy the 18-250 I would keep the 17-70 just for the few cases where I could need the 2.8 - 4.5

Like I said I'm just afraid that the 18-250 lacks significant in terms of sharpness compared to 17-70 + 55-300

asdf · 01-10-2010, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Richie1978

I know that primes get you the best possible image quality. But I personally prefer zooms. I very seldom shot in low light situations (probably sometimes landscapes but then I use a tripod. Primes are not an option for me.

If I buy the 18-250 I would keep the 17-70 just for the few cases where I could need the 2.8 - 4.5

Like I said I'm just afraid that the 18-250 lacks significant in terms of sharpness compared to 17-70 + 55-300

Full-size sample photos from Pentax 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3

01-09-2010, 12:11 PM	#1
Richie1978 Guest	Don't know what to buy Hi, since weeks I can't decide what lense to buy. Right now I have a Sigma 17-70 and Sigma 70-300. Since I used a USM lens (a friend of mine owns a Canon) I became addictet to the noiseless focusing. I mainly do landscape shooting (mainly in the Southwest USA - where I go almost every vacation). This also means a lot of hiking. So I can't decide between these two options: Sell the Sigma 17-70 and buy the new Sigma 17-70 HSM because of the HSM Sell the Sigma 70-300 and buy the DA 55-300 (because of the extra reach at the wide end). Or: Buy the Sigma 18-250 as a lens for traveling/hiking, sell the Sigma 70-300 (I don't need the Tele that often), and keep the Sigma 17-70 for the occasions where I can need the faster aperture. The most reviews say that the Sigma 18-250 is about the same IQ like the DA 18-250. So if this is the case, do you think I will be disappointed by the image-quality compared to the lenses I own right now? Thank you Richie

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Don't Feck With Me!	donallison13	Post Your Photos!	1	11-02-2010 09:10 PM
Nature Don't Feck With Me!	donallison13	Post Your Photos!	1	11-02-2010 06:27 PM
HI,I'm Don Dryer	d-dryer	Welcomes and Introductions	3	11-10-2009 07:47 PM
Don Neal	donneal	Welcomes and Introductions	2	01-25-2009 05:10 PM
Don in Louisville	craftsmansky	Welcomes and Introductions	3	10-28-2007 04:21 AM

01-10-2010, 04:59 AM	#2
Richie1978 Guest	No one any suggestions?

01-10-2010, 05:24 AM	#3
Diffusion Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 74	It is a very personal decision. I would not buy the 55-300 for the wide-end in your case, but the better performance in the long zoom range above 200mm. If you do not need that range, the point becomes moot. The old 17-70 goes down in max aperture fast, and in the long range (55-70, I think), it is slower than the Pentax at 4.5. The new 17-70 has its slowest at 4.0, just like the Pentax. I am not a huge fan of variable aperture zooms, except for the inexpensive long zoom I rarely use. Therefore I would get the 24-70/2.8 HSM, which likely blows the 17-70 out of the water in terms of IQ. But I already have the 16-50 from Pentax, which is quiet enough for me. If I understand your shooting correctly, I am not sure why you would buy the 18-250. It sounds like you shoot slightly wide/normal/slight tele, which the 17-70 does. If the reason why you do not use the 70-300 is lens changes, then by all means, the 18-250 is for you. If the 17-70 does not satisfy you in terms of aperture later on, get the 24-70 HSM, which is rather pricey.

01-10-2010, 05:58 AM	#4
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by Richie1978 No one any suggestions? If you only limit yourself to SDM/HSM lenses, you give us little to recommend. DA 17-70 f/4 SDM is very good optically, but SDM is known to fail. In any event, I have the (optically very good) Sigma 50 f/1.4 and its HSM still works...something I can't say about one of my SDM lenses. Also, in landscape photography, you don't necessarily "need" AF, at all. So do consider primes without built-in motors. Last edited by asdf; 01-10-2010 at 06:10 AM.

01-10-2010, 06:18 AM	#5
Richie1978 Guest	Quote: If I understand your shooting correctly, I am not sure why you would buy the 18-250. It sounds like you shoot slightly wide/normal/slight tele, which the 17-70 does. If the reason why you do not use the 70-300 is lens changes, then by all means, the 18-250 is for you. If the 17-70 does not satisfy you in terms of aperture later on, get the 24-70 HSM, which is rather pricey. The main reason is, that on vacation we do a lot of hiking and it was sometimes really frustrating when you carry three lenses (10-24, 17-70 and 70-300) on a 12 mile hike in the backcountry of Utah (and I don't mean National Park, where there are food courts where you can rest, I'm talking about backcountry where you don't see a single human the whole day). So the 18-250 would mean one lens less to carry around in such situation. I don't really need fast apertures as most of my pictures are made between f8 and f11 (somtimes f5.6). But I'm a little bit afraid that the iq (in terms of sharpness) is much less than the Sigma 17-70. This is what makes me unsure. Regards, Richie

01-10-2010, 06:27 AM	#6
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by Richie1978 So the 18-250 would mean one lens less to carry around in such situation. I don't really need fast apertures as most of my pictures are made between f8 and f11 (somtimes f5.6). A slow lens may hunt in bad weather because auto-focus systems don't like dim light/low contrast. Quote: But I'm a little bit afraid that the iq (in terms of sharpness) is much less than the Sigma 17-70. This is what makes me unsure. Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC (Pentax K) - Review / Test Report Pentax SMC DA 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 ED AL [IF] - Review / Lab Test Report

01-10-2010, 06:30 AM	#7
Richie1978 Guest	I have seen that tests, but I must admit that I'm not really good in interpreting such numbers I would interpret it that way, that the Tamron 18-250 is not really less sharp, than 17-70 + 70-300 but I'm not sure about that.

01-10-2010, 06:33 AM	#8
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by Richie1978 I have seen that tests, but I must admit that I'm not really good in interpreting such numbers I would interpret it that way, that the Tamron 18-250 is not really less sharp, than 17-70 + 70-300 but I'm not sure about that. Too bad they didn't include sample shots for the super-zoom.

01-10-2010, 06:35 AM	#9
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	Sounds to me like you should get an 18-250. Stopped down to f8, you would be hard pressed to separate the photos from a super zoom from your other lenses. The one exception is probably at the wide end where it will have more distortion than your 17-70. It certainly would be reasonable to get a Sigma with HSM if that is important to you, although the Pentax/Tamron 18-250 is quite a bit cheaper.

01-10-2010, 07:03 AM	#10
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	the DA55-300 is a lot better than the sigma...

01-10-2010, 07:13 AM	#11
rustynail925 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,551	Sell the 70-300 and get a DA55-300mm If you use macro Keep the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.5.. If not, The new Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 might be better

01-10-2010, 07:27 AM	#12
Richie1978 Guest	This are two options im thinking about all the time: Sigma 17-70 HSM instead of Sigma 17-70 DA 55-300 instead of Sigma 70-300 or keep the Simga 17-70 and the 70-300 and buy the 18-250 as an additional lens.

01-10-2010, 08:49 AM	#13
rustynail925 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,551	Originally posted by Richie1978 This are two options im thinking about all the time: Sigma 17-70 HSM instead of Sigma 17-70 DA 55-300 instead of Sigma 70-300 or keep the Simga 17-70 and the 70-300 and buy the 18-250 as an additional lens. Why would you buy a 18-250 since you've got that range covered by the 2 zooms. if you're thinking of getting the 18-250mm why not sell the 2 zooms and a couple of primes instead. It would be helpful in low light

01-10-2010, 08:57 AM	#14
Richie1978 Guest	I know that primes get you the best possible image quality. But I personally prefer zooms. I very seldom shot in low light situations (probably sometimes landscapes but then I use a tripod. Primes are not an option for me. If I buy the 18-250 I would keep the 17-70 just for the few cases where I could need the 2.8 - 4.5 Like I said I'm just afraid that the 18-250 lacks significant in terms of sharpness compared to 17-70 + 55-300

01-10-2010, 09:01 AM	#15
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by Richie1978 I know that primes get you the best possible image quality. But I personally prefer zooms. I very seldom shot in low light situations (probably sometimes landscapes but then I use a tripod. Primes are not an option for me. If I buy the 18-250 I would keep the 17-70 just for the few cases where I could need the 2.8 - 4.5 Like I said I'm just afraid that the 18-250 lacks significant in terms of sharpness compared to 17-70 + 55-300 Full-size sample photos from Pentax 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3