Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-04-2007, 02:58 PM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD (USA) ; Orlando, FL (USA)
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by barendvl Quote
I expect the 16-50 to have a comparable IQ to the 16-45, with better performance in regards to the CA problems the 16-45 exhibits. You have to understand that the DA* bonus you get is the weather sealing and SDM. Don't get me wrong tho, the IQ (CA excluded) of the 16-45 is very, very good, at least in my own experience (I own the lens). Sample images on my blog (link below).
I just got my DA 16-45mm f/4.0 and I'm very impressed.
Now that I took some shots in bright light against a good contrast, I do see the blue-yellow CAs in the corners.
They are not very noticeable compared to the typical red-magenta CAs you typically get.
But you'll still want to correct them, shooting RAW when you need the ultimate quality.

QuoteOriginally posted by barendvl Quote
I cannot judge the 17-70 because I have not used it. The Sigma quality control combined with the not-constant diaphragm wide open would make me reconsider the lens tho (I don't know how the lens performs wide open, but the Pentax at least is very usable at F4, and tops already at F5.6 (!!! one stop). I do think that these lenses are not really in the same league (focal-length wise). They serve different needs. I got the 16-45 because I figured I used my kit lens on the wide-end alot and was NOT liking the results Also, since I just got my flash, I can't say the F4 is a real problem. So if you learn how to flash in a proper way, you could go for either way. Basically, it's down to your needs, then decide which one you want to get.
It'll be interesting if and when Pentax releases its DA 17-70mm and DA 55-300mm lenses, allegedly next year.
I would really like to make the 17-70mm my main "walk about" lens and my DA 55-300mm my "action" lens.

Until then, the DA 16-45mm F/4.0 and DA 50-200mm f/4.0-5.6 provide me with most of what I need.
And I have the Zenitar FE 16mm for really wide angle shots (about 18mm equivalent with a good amount of barrel distortion, but not bad on the cropped sensor).
But I'm not the biggest on IQ and not even an amateur, just a novice.

I am, however, tempted by the DA* 60-250mm f/4.0, and should I put the funds into a K10D, I might go for it.
I'd only want the speed (of which there is a long telephoto f/2.8 prime planned) for those longer shots, especially at 250mm doing sports and aerial photography.
But for now, I got a very good DA 50-200mm sample, and I'm very happy.

08-04-2007, 03:37 PM   #17
axl
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by barendvl Quote
I expect the 16-50 to have a comparable IQ to the 16-45, with better performance in regards to the CA problems the 16-45 exhibits. You have to understand that the DA* bonus you get is the weather sealing and SDM. Don't get me wrong tho, the IQ (CA excluded) of the 16-45 is very, very good, at least in my own experience (I own the lens). Sample images on my blog (link below).
.
I know it's possible to fix CA in photoshop, but still IF 16-50 will not have it or less of it then 16-45, and it's expected to since it's going to be top of the line lens, then you still could consider overall image quality better.

anyway I agree the 16-45 is great lens, with great IQ, thinking about getting it myself....
08-06-2007, 08:31 AM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD (USA) ; Orlando, FL (USA)
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
anyway I agree the 16-45 is great lens, with great IQ, thinking about getting it myself....
That's why I finally bought it, when it dropped to $359 shipped - $100 rebate. I guess it will drop even more now that the rebates have been extended yet again. Oh well, I love having the 83 degrees FOV without having to pull out my Zenitar 16mm FE manual and deal with its added barrel distortion.

But as I was hinting before, I'm not the biggest IQ critical for a wide angle. Just the fact that I have a 24.5mm equivalent wide angle (and sub-20mm with the Zenitar) is one of two major reasons why I went dSLR over a "bridge" in the first place.

I'm more of an IQ critic for the telezoom, the other reason I went dSLR. And that's why I'm very thankful I have an outstanding DA 50-200mm sample. Blows the crap out of every $400+ "bridge" PnS camera I tried (Canon S3 IS, Sony H5 and H7, etc...). I don't care if I've got a higher aperature and alleged "slower" lens than most "bridge" cameras -- the IQ different (especially at higher ISOs) is totally night'n day.
08-07-2007, 04:39 AM   #19
Veteran Member
raider's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,947
Why not consider also sigma 18-50mm f2.8? It is much faster than both the lenses u quoted here and i believe it is almost the same price as the Sigma 17-70.

08-07-2007, 11:30 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: U.K.
Posts: 685
I've never seen any PF/CA with my Sigma 17-70, the Pentax 16-45 samples I've seen do have some. The only thing I would mark the Sigma down for is some softness wide open at 17mm but it's still quite usable.
08-07-2007, 04:29 PM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD (USA) ; Orlando, FL (USA)
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by raider Quote
Why not consider also sigma 18-50mm f2.8? It is much faster than both the lenses u quoted here and i believe it is almost the same price as the Sigma 17-70.
For starters ...
- Not as wide as either (especially not the 83 degree FOV Pentax 16-45 which gives you 24.5mm equivalent, instead of 27.5mm)
- Not as much range as the Sigma DC 17-70 (of which many like, I'm waiting on the Pentax DA 17-70mm in 2008 myself)
- Another 1/2 to 2/3rds cost over the Pentax 16-45 (big factor for myself)
- Various features of the Pentax (quick release, SMC coating, etc...)

Now with all that said, if anyone is looking for a solid, outstanding 27.5-76.5mm equivalent lens, then the Sigma DC EX 18-50 f/2.8 is it.
The Sigma DC 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 doesn't even compete at f/2.8, and you're right, it's about the same price.
It is far, far better than the DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, better than the DA 16-45mm f/4.0 too.

But the DA 16-45mm is just over $250 after rebate, and offers a bit more at the wide range.
If I had an extra $400, I'd drop it for the Sigma DC EX 18-50mm f/2.8 and use it as the kit replacement.
Heck, if I had an extra $900, I'd get both the Sigma DC EX 18-50mm f/2.8 and Sigma DC EX 10-20mm f/4.0-5.6 and forget considering either!

But I wanted to spend only $250, so I got the Pentax DA 16-45mm f/4.0.
Understand I'm only pairing that with the $120 (after double rebate) Pentax DA 50-200mm f/4.0-5.6 -- I'm a novice, not even an amateur.
And with the DA 16-45mm, I'm finding I'm not pulling out my $125 eBay special Zenitar FE 16mm manual nearly as much now.

The step from 27.5mm (18mm, 76 deg) to 26mm (17mm, 79.5 deg) to 24.5mm (16mm, 83 deg) is significant enough, at least for me.
It's the difference between another person in the group, it's the difference between another hill in the landscape.
At least when you are only carrying three (3) lenses like myself, all el'cheapos, with the sub-$350 (after rebate) K100D.
08-07-2007, 04:55 PM   #22
Veteran Member
raider's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,947
Pentax is coming up with the 17-70 in 2008 right? Is it wise to just wait a bit to get this lens instead of the Sigma DC 17-70 f/2.8-4.5?

Not sure if it will be a f2.8 lens though (prolly not likely since we now have the DA* 16-50). But it might be a f4 lens though?

I am personally debating if I should just get the Sigma 18-50/f2.8 or the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 or the Sigma 24-70/f2.8....instead of waiting for pentax to release the equivalent, if they ever will.
08-07-2007, 06:40 PM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 168
I've been sifting about with the same information as the Sigma 17-70 is on my list of potential buys and someone made a good point in one of the other threads that it is undoubted that the Pentax 17-70 will be more expensive than the third party Sigma. The 17-70 is on fire right now in my opinion and is a worthy competitor for the price and range it provides.

The 18-50 is nice with the constant f2.8 but for me being able to get an extra 20mm on the long end while still keeping a decent aperture is what makes the 17-70 such a great lens (price is good as well).

08-07-2007, 07:01 PM   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD (USA) ; Orlando, FL (USA)
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by raider Quote
Pentax is coming up with the 17-70 in 2008 right? Is it wise to just wait a bit to get this lens instead of the Sigma DC 17-70 f/2.8-4.5?
Most people have stated, including the PhotoZone.DE review, that the Sigma DC 17-70 is not a f/2.8 lens.
It's rather unusable at f/2.8, and it is really a f/3.5 or 4.0-4.5 lens.

QuoteOriginally posted by raider Quote
Not sure if it will be a f2.8 lens though (prolly not likely since we now have the DA* 16-50). But it might be a f4 lens though?
It would be nice if the DA 17-70 is a f/4.0 lens, but I think it'll be a f/3.5-5.6 lens like the 18-55 kit.
But you never know, and it will depend a lot on price.

QuoteOriginally posted by raider Quote
I am personally debating if I should just get the Sigma 18-50/f2.8 or the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 or the Sigma 24-70/f2.8....instead of waiting for pentax to release the equivalent, if they ever will.
Everything I've read about the Sigma DC EX 18-50 f/2.8 has been extremely positive.
The cheaper, non-EX Sigma DC 18-50 (f/3.5-4.5 or was it -5.6?) not so good, but the EX 18-50 very good.
08-12-2007, 09:46 AM   #25
axl
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by bjsmith Quote
That's why I finally bought it, when it dropped to $359 shipped - $100 rebate. ....
I'm still thinking about doing so...
The cheapest I've seen it here in london is 259 pounds, which is around 50 less then sigma 10-20 (the other lens I'm thinking of). But then the difference 10 or 16 mm may be worth that money, I'm doing mostly landscapes and citscapes... I did even compare 16 to 18 but it hasn't convinced me, yet
(I only mean in terms of FOW)
but there is another good point to da 16-45: it looks bloody good on K100D
well but anyway, I'm not sure yet
08-27-2007, 11:40 PM   #26
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD (USA) ; Orlando, FL (USA)
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
I'm still thinking about doing so...
The cheapest I've seen it here in london is 259 pounds, which is around 50 less then sigma 10-20 (the other lens I'm thinking of).
That's a small difference, and I'd go for the Sigma 10-20mm then.
Here in the US, the Sigma 10-20 is almost $200 more (after the $100 Pentax 16-45mm rebate), about 80%.
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
But then the difference 10 or 16 mm may be worth that money, I'm doing mostly landscapes and citscapes...
Yes, 102.5 degrees is much better than only 83.3 degrees.
But in all honesty, I'm finding 83.3 degrees to be very satisfying, and I'm not whipping out my Zenitar 16mm fisheye anymore.

QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
I did even compare 16 to 18 but it hasn't convinced me, yet (I only mean in terms of FOW)
Actually, I'm finding the difference between 16mm and 18mm to be very, very significant for myself, even if it's just a tad less than 10 degrees overall.

QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
but there is another good point to da 16-45: it looks bloody good on K100D
well but anyway, I'm not sure yet
Outside of the US, the Sigma 10-20mm might be a better move, or a complementary move.
But here in the US, it's almost double, so it's really a consideration if you need less than 16mm (24.5mm equivalent, 83.3 degrees).

For me, I'm just an engineer, so I real can't plunk down $450 for the Sigma 10-20mm.
But I could afford the $250 Pentax 16-45mm, and I don't think I really need much more.
If I do, I can use the Zenitar 16mm FE, which only cost me $125 when I got it earlier.
08-28-2007, 12:29 AM   #27
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 49
I have hammered out about 5000 shots in the last two weeks with the 16-45mm lens; most of them outdoors with fill-flash. I am hugely impressed with it (and so is the client, although they couldn't care about the lens; they just want to see RESULTS.)

I don't think I could have done nearly as well with the Sigma. A constant-aperture lens means when I use fill flash, I meter the background in M, set the flash to P-TTL, dial in a -1.5 EV flash compensation and shoot away. When I am working quickly, every time I stop to fiddle, it lowers the energy and you can immediately see the results in the eyes and the smiles of the models. If I shoot in M mode, the Sigma would require remetering every time I zoomed in and out.

I really love constant aperture zoom lenses when using fill-flash!
08-28-2007, 04:17 AM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,954
But if you set the sigma at 4.5 you could zoom back and forth as much as you like and it would still stay at 4.5. Or am I missing something?
08-28-2007, 07:25 AM   #29
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Outside of Philly
Posts: 1,564
Sigma 10-20mm

Yep, you're missing something

The 10-20mm starts out at f/4, but is f/5.6 by the time you get to 20mm, so it's fairly slow. Generally not a problem though (especially outdoors)


QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
But if you set the sigma at 4.5 you could zoom back and forth as much as you like and it would still stay at 4.5. Or am I missing something?
Great lens! I love the first shot below, generally you need to keep an eye on your feet/shadows showing up in the frame, but this one I decided to make my boots front and center! (this is about the only picture of "me" from our vacation last week!)

08-28-2007, 07:31 AM   #30
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Outside of Philly
Posts: 1,564
Oops, I missed something! You're talking about the 17-70mm

Yep, you can definetly keep it at f/4.5, even ~17mm. Sorry! Got confused reading the comments above about the 10-20mm.

Hope you all enjoyed my 10-20mm pictures!

QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
But if you set the sigma at 4.5 you could zoom back and forth as much as you like and it would still stay at 4.5. Or am I missing something?
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, lens, pentax, pentax lens, sigma, slr lens, vs sigma
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
is a 18-200mm sigma a good swap for pentax 18-55mm and sigma 70-300mm? tomell Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 2 06-18-2010 09:36 AM
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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:57 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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