[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Not for Pentax.

From the press release:

This new lens will be available at the end of April in Sigma, Canon and Nikon fit. Sony and Pentax will follow shortly.

[jct us101]

The Pentax version will probably be available in May, but knowing Sigma it'll probably not be seen in any stores until late summer. The new 50-200mm that was released over a month ago still isn't available barely anywhere, and nowhere I've seen it for the Pentax mount yet. I hope that will change soon though since I want one of them.

[Pentaxor]

The Pentax version will probably be available in May, but knowing Sigma it'll probably not be seen in any stores until late summer. The new 50-200mm that was released over a month ago still isn't available barely anywhere, and nowhere I've seen it for the Pentax mount yet. I hope that will change soon though since I want one of them.

that's ok. enough time to save money or contemplate on buying something else that comes out during that time.

[GeneV]

The Pentax version will probably be available in May, but knowing Sigma it'll probably not be seen in any stores until late summer. The new 50-200mm that was released over a month ago still isn't available barely anywhere, and nowhere I've seen it for the Pentax mount yet. I hope that will change soon though since I want one of them.

Is there a good reason to get the Sigma over the Pentax 50-200? The Sigma costs more, weighs twice as much, is 30% longer, and the only feature it adds over Pentax is HSM. There does not seem to be a big difference in IQ (except, maybe, at 50mm), according to the only review I could find. For about the size and weight of the Sigma, it seems like the DA 55-300 makes more sense IMO.

[Marc Sabatella]

Agreed. The Sigma 50-200 has got to be one of the least appealng lens releases in recent memory.

[Fleafly]

I have 10-20mm old version, but I use it 90% at 10mm, quality is decent. I listen the new model quality is better but I don't think there's this big difference,
if you fond old model at a good price, why not :->

[jct us101]

Is there a good reason to get the Sigma over the Pentax 50-200? The Sigma costs more, weighs twice as much, is 30% longer, and the only feature it adds over Pentax is HSM. There does not seem to be a big difference in IQ (except, maybe, at 50mm), according to the only review I could find. For about the size and weight of the Sigma, it seems like the DA 55-300 makes more sense IMO.

I don't have Pentax right now, and for Canon which I do have, the Sigma is actually the most appealing option right now unless I went with the EF-s 55-250mm IS, which I had before and liked, but it costs a bit more new than the Sigma does. If I did have a Pentax though I would definitely go with the DA 50-200mm instead of it.

[JP_Seattle]

The price will probably be outrageous for the 8-16mm when it comes out. I would just get the 10-20mm 3.5

I checked one out for about a week before deciding on the Pentax DA 10-17 fisheye. I just got a K-x a few months back and if you don't mind the barrel distortion of a fisheye lens, it will offer you a much wider field of view than an ultra-wide like the Sigma 10-20mm lens. 180-100 degrees on the Pentax fisheye vs 102-63 degrees on the Sigma 10-20.

If you compse the shot correctly, you can really minimize the look of the distortion on the fisheye like so:



Of course, if you really want to get crazy with the fisheye, you can do that as well :