Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

DogLover · 03-29-2011, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by simico

My DA* is also brand new on a brand new K-5. IQ at F2.8 sucks compared to any other 2.8 standard zoom.

You must have a bad copy. My 16-50 looks awesome on my K5, just as it always has on my K7.

garethwebber · 03-29-2011, 04:02 PM

I recently got a 16-50 too. Did a load of tests to check it was ok given the decentering scares.

Getting better shots than a tamron 17-50. Suspect the tammy had focusing problems. She went back.

Was sorely tempted by the sigma but my desire for a waterproof lens and a bad review for the sigma in amateur photographer put me off.

Time will tell on sdm.

twitch · 03-29-2011, 04:57 PM

I tried 2 copies of the DA*16-50 and both stunk so I gave up and got a DA 12-24 which is fantastic. The poor reputation the 16-50 lens has round here is well deserved IMHO, I'm sure there are good copies out there, but there seems to be an awful lot of sub standard copies coming out of the factory.

I'm not just a DA* hater either, I have a DA*50-135 and that is just an incredible zoom and produces stunning images.

Armanius · 03-29-2011, 06:00 PM

Ok, I decided to take the plunge and ordered both the Siggy and Tammy 17-50. I'll see which one I like better and report back. Hopefully the cheaper one!

DogLover · 03-29-2011, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by twitch

I tried 2 copies of the DA*16-50 and both stunk so I gave up and got a DA 12-24 which is fantastic. The poor reputation the 16-50 lens has round here is well deserved IMHO, I'm sure there are good copies out there, but there seems to be an awful lot of sub standard copies coming out of the factory.

I'm not just a DA* hater either, I have a DA*50-135 and that is just an incredible zoom and produces stunning images.

I can't really claim that the 16-50 is un-fairly maligned. It has been a problem lens for Pentax, but there are some really good copies out there, I assure you. I would rate the IQ on mine as just a smidge below my 50-135, except maybe at the extreme wide end.

Tommot1965 · 03-30-2011, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Armanius

How does the Sigma 17-50 balance on the K5? Is the lens big on the K5? I think it's 3.6" in length (which is not bad), but it's 3.3" in diameter, and it takes a 77mm filter.

Can you post a photo of the K5 with the Sigma 17-50 mounted on it? Thanks!

as requested

crappy iphone image im afraid

elho_cid · 03-30-2011, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Armanius

It does have a six year warranty. Although I've never owned a Tamron lens (or Sigma lens) before. Very tempted to get one as it's much cheaper than the Pentax equivalent.

Only 2 years of waranty here (but I can get additional year by using credit card). It is also the question how the complaint during warranty period are handled by service. I never had slightest problem with Pentax service here, they are very cooperative and all complaints were resolved to my complete satisfaction. Not so much with Sigma. Even for EX grade lenses they say that the performance is within specifications even if the IQ is very bad (that happened to my friend with 100-300/4).
But if the situation is the opposite in the US, then I understand that you may prefer third party accessories.

Armanius · 03-30-2011, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by Tommot1965

as requested

crappy iphone image im afraid

Thx for the photo! The lens looks big, and that front element is even bigger! Funny how Sigma calls it compact! But I guess relative to some other equivalent lenses, it is more compact. Looking forward to using one soon!

Thanks again for the photo!

twitch · 03-30-2011, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by DogLover

I can't really claim that the 16-50 is un-fairly maligned. It has been a problem lens for Pentax, but there are some really good copies out there, I assure you. I would rate the IQ on mine as just a smidge below my 50-135, except maybe at the extreme wide end.

OK, so can I buy yours then?

DogLover · 03-30-2011, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by twitch

OK, so can I buy yours then?

I know you're joking, but I sometimes do contemplate selling it to help fund that damn 31. I would then have AF primes at 15,31, and 43 (plus 55) that would seem to make the 16-50 superfluous, but then I think about how perfect it is for event photography. It still seems pretty much irreplaceable to me for that use.

elho_cid · 03-30-2011, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by DogLover

I know you're joking, but I sometimes do contemplate selling it to help fund that damn 31.

Isn't it better idea to sell the Zeiss to fund the FA31? It will probably see litle usage then anyway

DogLover · 03-30-2011, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by elho_cid

Isn't it better idea to sell the Zeiss to fund the FA31? It will probably see litle usage then anyway

You would think so, but my Zeiss' are off limits and will never be sold. They are my guilty pleasures and are even kept in a separate hard case. When I use them, I use only them and only when shooting strictly for pleasure when I can really take my time and enjoy myself. They are, in short, my photography therapy.

I will admit, though, that when I got the 28/2, I did think that it might preclude me from ever needing a 31. Didn't turn out that way. First, I still need an AF prime in that FL as I just can't MF the 28 fast enough for all situations. The other 2 maybe, but not the 28. Second, and I don't intend this as a knock against the lens, but it does exhibit some field curvature in the near-field. It's actually kinda cool sometimes, but not all the time. So there's that.

pop4 · 03-30-2011, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Armanius

Thx for the photo! The lens looks big, and that front element is even bigger! Funny how Sigma calls it compact! But I guess relative to some other equivalent lenses, it is more compact. Looking forward to using one soon!

The front element is 77mm, which seems to be standard across most fast zooms (Nikkor 24-70/2.8, Nikkor 17-55/2.8, Canon 70-200/2.8 series, Canon 24-70/2.8, and even the Pentax-DA* 16-50/2.8); so while it's big compared to kit lenses and consumer lenses, it's quite standard really. Size wise, it's very similar to the Sigma 50/1.4 and 10-20/3.5, all of which I own.

Raylon · 03-30-2011, 06:58 PM

My Sigma 17-50 is ridiculous. Crazy sharp at all apertures, even with the demanding 7D 18MP sensor. Focus is lightning fast. I can't how people could give it a bad review.

elpolodiablo · 03-30-2011, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by pop4

The front element is 77mm, which seems to be standard across most fast zooms (Nikkor 24-70/2.8, Nikkor 17-55/2.8, Canon 70-200/2.8 series, Canon 24-70/2.8, and even the Pentax-DA* 16-50/2.8); so while it's big compared to kit lenses and consumer lenses, it's quite standard really. Size wise, it's very similar to the Sigma 50/1.4 and 10-20/3.5, all of which I own.

Just a note that Tamron 17-50 f2.8 got 67mm filter thread, only got mine last night so can't really comment on the IQ of it yet.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM v Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF]	lmd91343	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	05-25-2011 07:04 PM
Pentax SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 Lens or Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM?	NicK10D	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	06-23-2010 06:21 AM
the New Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM	gr8wings	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	03-28-2010 08:26 AM
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM	Mann	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	07-06-2009 02:40 AM
Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX DG HSM ?	Big G	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	05-22-2009 05:59 AM

03-29-2011, 03:42 PM	#31
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by simico My DA* is also brand new on a brand new K-5. IQ at F2.8 sucks compared to any other 2.8 standard zoom. You must have a bad copy. My 16-50 looks awesome on my K5, just as it always has on my K7.

03-29-2011, 04:02 PM	#32
garethwebber Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Kent, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 104	I recently got a 16-50 too. Did a load of tests to check it was ok given the decentering scares. Getting better shots than a tamron 17-50. Suspect the tammy had focusing problems. She went back. Was sorely tempted by the sigma but my desire for a waterproof lens and a bad review for the sigma in amateur photographer put me off. Time will tell on sdm.

03-29-2011, 04:57 PM	#33
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	I tried 2 copies of the DA16-50 and both stunk so I gave up and got a DA 12-24 which is fantastic. The poor reputation the 16-50 lens has round here is well deserved IMHO, I'm sure there are good copies out there, but there seems to be an awful lot of sub standard copies coming out of the factory. I'm not just a DA hater either, I have a DA*50-135 and that is just an incredible zoom and produces stunning images.

03-29-2011, 06:00 PM	#34
Armanius Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Houston, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 112	Ok, I decided to take the plunge and ordered both the Siggy and Tammy 17-50. I'll see which one I like better and report back. Hopefully the cheaper one!

03-29-2011, 07:10 PM	#35
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by twitch I tried 2 copies of the DA16-50 and both stunk so I gave up and got a DA 12-24 which is fantastic. The poor reputation the 16-50 lens has round here is well deserved IMHO, I'm sure there are good copies out there, but there seems to be an awful lot of sub standard copies coming out of the factory. I'm not just a DA hater either, I have a DA50-135 and that is just an incredible zoom and produces stunning images. I can't really claim that the 16-50 is un-fairly maligned. It has been a problem lens for Pentax, but there are some really* good copies out there, I assure you. I would rate the IQ on mine as just a smidge below my 50-135, except maybe at the extreme wide end.

03-30-2011, 12:14 AM	#36
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	Originally posted by Armanius How does the Sigma 17-50 balance on the K5? Is the lens big on the K5? I think it's 3.6" in length (which is not bad), but it's 3.3" in diameter, and it takes a 77mm filter. Can you post a photo of the K5 with the Sigma 17-50 mounted on it? Thanks! as requested crappy iphone image im afraid

03-30-2011, 01:23 AM	#37
elho_cid Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Prague Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	Originally posted by Armanius It does have a six year warranty. Although I've never owned a Tamron lens (or Sigma lens) before. Very tempted to get one as it's much cheaper than the Pentax equivalent. Only 2 years of waranty here (but I can get additional year by using credit card). It is also the question how the complaint during warranty period are handled by service. I never had slightest problem with Pentax service here, they are very cooperative and all complaints were resolved to my complete satisfaction. Not so much with Sigma. Even for EX grade lenses they say that the performance is within specifications even if the IQ is very bad (that happened to my friend with 100-300/4). But if the situation is the opposite in the US, then I understand that you may prefer third party accessories.

03-30-2011, 04:05 AM	#38
Armanius Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Houston, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 112	Originally posted by Tommot1965 as requested crappy iphone image im afraid Thx for the photo! The lens looks big, and that front element is even bigger! Funny how Sigma calls it compact! But I guess relative to some other equivalent lenses, it is more compact. Looking forward to using one soon! Thanks again for the photo!

03-30-2011, 04:10 AM	#39
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by DogLover I can't really claim that the 16-50 is un-fairly maligned. It has been a problem lens for Pentax, but there are some really good copies out there, I assure you. I would rate the IQ on mine as just a smidge below my 50-135, except maybe at the extreme wide end. OK, so can I buy yours then?

03-30-2011, 08:55 AM	#40
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by twitch OK, so can I buy yours then? I know you're joking, but I sometimes do contemplate selling it to help fund that damn 31. I would then have AF primes at 15,31, and 43 (plus 55) that would seem to make the 16-50 superfluous, but then I think about how perfect it is for event photography. It still seems pretty much irreplaceable to me for that use.

03-30-2011, 11:59 AM	#41
elho_cid Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Prague Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	Originally posted by DogLover I know you're joking, but I sometimes do contemplate selling it to help fund that damn 31. Isn't it better idea to sell the Zeiss to fund the FA31? It will probably see litle usage then anyway

03-30-2011, 12:35 PM	#42
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by elho_cid Isn't it better idea to sell the Zeiss to fund the FA31? It will probably see litle usage then anyway You would think so, but my Zeiss' are off limits and will never be sold. They are my guilty pleasures and are even kept in a separate hard case. When I use them, I use only them and only when shooting strictly for pleasure when I can really take my time and enjoy myself. They are, in short, my photography therapy. I will admit, though, that when I got the 28/2, I did think that it might preclude me from ever needing a 31. Didn't turn out that way. First, I still need an AF prime in that FL as I just can't MF the 28 fast enough for all situations. The other 2 maybe, but not the 28. Second, and I don't intend this as a knock against the lens, but it does exhibit some field curvature in the near-field. It's actually kinda cool sometimes, but not all the time. So there's that.

03-30-2011, 04:01 PM	#43
pop4 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: YMML Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,879	Originally posted by Armanius Thx for the photo! The lens looks big, and that front element is even bigger! Funny how Sigma calls it compact! But I guess relative to some other equivalent lenses, it is more compact. Looking forward to using one soon! The front element is 77mm, which seems to be standard across most fast zooms (Nikkor 24-70/2.8, Nikkor 17-55/2.8, Canon 70-200/2.8 series, Canon 24-70/2.8, and even the Pentax-DA* 16-50/2.8); so while it's big compared to kit lenses and consumer lenses, it's quite standard really. Size wise, it's very similar to the Sigma 50/1.4 and 10-20/3.5, all of which I own.

03-30-2011, 06:58 PM	#44
Raylon Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 70	My Sigma 17-50 is ridiculous. Crazy sharp at all apertures, even with the demanding 7D 18MP sensor. Focus is lightning fast. I can't how people could give it a bad review.

03-30-2011, 08:12 PM	#45
elpolodiablo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,637	Originally posted by pop4 The front element is 77mm, which seems to be standard across most fast zooms (Nikkor 24-70/2.8, Nikkor 17-55/2.8, Canon 70-200/2.8 series, Canon 24-70/2.8, and even the Pentax-DA* 16-50/2.8); so while it's big compared to kit lenses and consumer lenses, it's quite standard really. Size wise, it's very similar to the Sigma 50/1.4 and 10-20/3.5, all of which I own. Just a note that Tamron 17-50 f2.8 got 67mm filter thread, only got mine last night so can't really comment on the IQ of it yet.

K-5 & Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX OS HSM

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!