Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-29-2011, 03:42 PM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by simico Quote
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
Senior Member
garethwebber's Avatar

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
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
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.
03-29-2011, 06:00 PM   #34
Senior Member
Armanius's Avatar

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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
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.
03-30-2011, 12:14 AM   #36
Veteran Member
Tommot1965's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,026
QuoteOriginally posted by Armanius Quote
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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prague
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,198
QuoteOriginally posted by Armanius Quote
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
Senior Member
Armanius's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 112
QuoteOriginally posted by Tommot1965 Quote
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
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by DogLover Quote
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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prague
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,198
QuoteOriginally posted by DogLover Quote
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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by elho_cid Quote
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
Veteran Member
pop4's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: YMML
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,877
QuoteOriginally posted by Armanius Quote
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
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 64
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
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,589
QuoteOriginally posted by pop4 Quote
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.
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!
camera, dslr, f/2.8, hsm, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, os, pentax k-5, sigma, sigma 17-50mm f/2.8
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:57 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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