K-5 + Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM?

treebeard · 03-04-2012, 12:08 PM

I am going to buy a new K-5 in the next few days and then use my K-r as backup. I am really leaning on getting a new Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM lens as my walk-around lens. Does anyone have any sample images they care to share? How do you like the build quality.....is it noisy when focusing, especially in low-light? The wide angle Pentax lenses don't really appeal to me too much hence my reason for leaning towards the Sigma. Thanks.

Last edited by treebeard; 03-04-2012 at 01:32 PM.

SpecialK · 03-04-2012, 01:07 PM

I have the older version of the lens, which I'm happy with. It's no noisier than any other lens I use (except the 150-500 that has HSM).

treebeard · 03-04-2012, 01:12 PM

I have used the older version that was not OS nor HSM and it was pretty nice. I had the Pentax 17-70 f/4 and was totally unimpressed with it...noisy and not sharp at all.

**K(s)evin** · 03-04-2012, 01:15 PM

I use this combo as my primary setup (though with the newer 2.8-4 version). Having battled LBA since first getting into digital photography, I've tried numerous times to replace the 17-70 as my main lens, all to no avail. The sharpness of the photos, the fast QUIET focussing and the convenient FL have kept it on my camera.

I tried HARD to find a zoom lens that encompassed a larger range (18-200, 18-250, 18-135, etc. Call me a dreamer!

) but the inconsistent quality across the focal range was disappointing.

I don't have access to any photos at the moment. But trust me, you will not be disappointed!

treebeard · 03-04-2012, 01:34 PM

I fixed my post to reflect that I am looking at the NEW Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM (seems I forgot how to cut and paste!!) as opposed to the old version. I appreciate the input.

Bob from Aus · 03-04-2012, 03:47 PM

I have the sigma older lens. It does a surprisingly good semi-macro photo. It does work much much better on my K5 than any of my the other three older bodies.

However I have used the penatx 17-70 and my sigma lens makes the pentax lens look brilliant in comparison. This could be due to only having used the pentax 17-70 on the K5. If I were to buy on non WR zoom now in this kind of range I would go the Sigma 17-50. I am hanging out to see what the new pentax 17-50 will be like.

JinDesu · 03-04-2012, 04:13 PM

I can only comment on the lens:

The focusing is quiet (but not smooth focusing, you can check youtube). The focus speed is slow on my k-x compared to the screw drive of the DA 35. Lens is quite good from 17-50, and ok from 50-70. The 7 aperture blades is nice. Bokeh wide open is good. Hood is meant for wide angle, so it doesn't help at 50-70mm.

Build is nice, the zoom is well dampened. The lens weighty, but the OS may feel weird as it has a floating element or something. I like the lens as a budget replacement for the kit lens.

treebeard · 03-04-2012, 04:21 PM

Thank you for you opinion and your findings.

neil · 03-05-2012, 02:31 AM

Not a bad lens at all, it is on my K-5 a lot. Its size is well-balanced with the grip attached to the camera. I actually use the OS feature (and find it effective) as I have SR permanently turned off in-camera.

The only thing that irk's me about the lens is the amount if vignetting.

Other then that, it was a bargain considering I bought it for $325 new!

JinDesu · 03-05-2012, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by neil

Not a bad lens at all, it is on my K-5 a lot. Its size is well-balanced with the grip attached to the camera. I actually use the OS feature (and find it effective) as I have SR permanently turned off in-camera.

The only thing that irk's me about the lens is the amount if vignetting.

Other then that, it was a bargain considering I bought it for $325 new!

That is true - the vignetting on the wider ends is annoying - I don't notice so much because Lightroom has a profile for the lens.

**felixkh** · 03-05-2012, 05:17 AM

I had the older version and it was a great lens, but I cannot comment on the newer version as I moved on to the DA*16-50 F2.8 and the DA18-135WR, both are great copies and great lenses on their own.

**NaClH2O** · 03-05-2012, 05:36 AM

I can reiterate exactly Special K's experience. It is a good lens, but not a great lens. Since then I have gotten the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 which I like a LOT better, sharper, constant aperture, lighter and somewhat smaller. If you can afford it I would recommend the Tammy instead.

NaCl(the Tamron 17-50 is practically welded to my camera)H2O

treebeard · 03-05-2012, 07:13 AM

Thanks for the comments. I am looking at the Tammy as well...but not sure as I had two of them in the past and both had focusing issues and I was disappointed. The only reason for me getting the Tammy would be for the constant 2.8.

janstew · 03-08-2012, 11:45 PM

I second or third the Tammy.........
cheers
Jan

03-04-2012, 12:08 PM	#1
treebeard Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Windham, NH Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 793	K-5 + Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM? I am going to buy a new K-5 in the next few days and then use my K-r as backup. I am really leaning on getting a new Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM lens as my walk-around lens. Does anyone have any sample images they care to share? How do you like the build quality.....is it noisy when focusing, especially in low-light? The wide angle Pentax lenses don't really appeal to me too much hence my reason for leaning towards the Sigma. Thanks. Last edited by treebeard; 03-04-2012 at 01:32 PM.

03-04-2012, 01:15 PM	#4
K(s)evin Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 476	I use this combo as my primary setup (though with the newer 2.8-4 version). Having battled LBA since first getting into digital photography, I've tried numerous times to replace the 17-70 as my main lens, all to no avail. The sharpness of the photos, the fast QUIET focussing and the convenient FL have kept it on my camera. I tried HARD to find a zoom lens that encompassed a larger range (18-200, 18-250, 18-135, etc. Call me a dreamer!) but the inconsistent quality across the focal range was disappointing. I don't have access to any photos at the moment. But trust me, you will not be disappointed!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited samples	psychdoc	Lens Sample Photo Archive	82	10-15-2020 05:14 AM
Pentax-F 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 samples	Nick Siebers	Lens Sample Photo Archive	17	12-13-2014 11:17 AM
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro samples	pop4	Lens Sample Photo Archive	27	10-11-2013 01:34 AM
FA*28-70mm/f2.8 takes on the FA limiteds(Multiple BORING Test samples-Dial-upWARNING)	pcarfan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	30	05-15-2010 05:45 PM

03-04-2012, 01:07 PM	#2
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	I have the older version of the lens, which I'm happy with. It's no noisier than any other lens I use (except the 150-500 that has HSM).

03-04-2012, 01:12 PM	#3
treebeard Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Windham, NH Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 793 Original Poster	I have used the older version that was not OS nor HSM and it was pretty nice. I had the Pentax 17-70 f/4 and was totally unimpressed with it...noisy and not sharp at all.

03-04-2012, 01:34 PM	#5
treebeard Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Windham, NH Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 793 Original Poster	I fixed my post to reflect that I am looking at the NEW Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM (seems I forgot how to cut and paste!!) as opposed to the old version. I appreciate the input.

03-04-2012, 03:47 PM	#6
Bob from Aus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,094	I have the sigma older lens. It does a surprisingly good semi-macro photo. It does work much much better on my K5 than any of my the other three older bodies. However I have used the penatx 17-70 and my sigma lens makes the pentax lens look brilliant in comparison. This could be due to only having used the pentax 17-70 on the K5. If I were to buy on non WR zoom now in this kind of range I would go the Sigma 17-50. I am hanging out to see what the new pentax 17-50 will be like.

03-04-2012, 04:13 PM	#7
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	I can only comment on the lens: The focusing is quiet (but not smooth focusing, you can check youtube). The focus speed is slow on my k-x compared to the screw drive of the DA 35. Lens is quite good from 17-50, and ok from 50-70. The 7 aperture blades is nice. Bokeh wide open is good. Hood is meant for wide angle, so it doesn't help at 50-70mm. Build is nice, the zoom is well dampened. The lens weighty, but the OS may feel weird as it has a floating element or something. I like the lens as a budget replacement for the kit lens.

03-04-2012, 04:21 PM	#8
treebeard Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Windham, NH Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 793 Original Poster	Thank you for you opinion and your findings.

03-05-2012, 02:31 AM	#9
neil Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 182	Not a bad lens at all, it is on my K-5 a lot. Its size is well-balanced with the grip attached to the camera. I actually use the OS feature (and find it effective) as I have SR permanently turned off in-camera. The only thing that irk's me about the lens is the amount if vignetting. Other then that, it was a bargain considering I bought it for $325 new!

03-05-2012, 05:10 AM	#10
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by neil Not a bad lens at all, it is on my K-5 a lot. Its size is well-balanced with the grip attached to the camera. I actually use the OS feature (and find it effective) as I have SR permanently turned off in-camera. The only thing that irk's me about the lens is the amount if vignetting. Other then that, it was a bargain considering I bought it for $325 new! That is true - the vignetting on the wider ends is annoying - I don't notice so much because Lightroom has a profile for the lens.

03-05-2012, 05:17 AM	#11
felixkh Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,201	I had the older version and it was a great lens, but I cannot comment on the newer version as I moved on to the DA*16-50 F2.8 and the DA18-135WR, both are great copies and great lenses on their own.

03-05-2012, 05:36 AM	#12
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	I can reiterate exactly Special K's experience. It is a good lens, but not a great lens. Since then I have gotten the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 which I like a LOT better, sharper, constant aperture, lighter and somewhat smaller. If you can afford it I would recommend the Tammy instead. NaCl(the Tamron 17-50 is practically welded to my camera)H2O

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2012, 07:13 AM	#13
treebeard Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Windham, NH Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 793 Original Poster	Thanks for the comments. I am looking at the Tammy as well...but not sure as I had two of them in the past and both had focusing issues and I was disappointed. The only reason for me getting the Tammy would be for the constant 2.8.

03-08-2012, 11:45 PM	#14
janstew Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Forbes Central West NSW Posts: 311	I second or third the Tammy......... cheers Jan