[grahamcoad]

Any concerns about this lens not being WR?

I plan to shoot a lot in harsh environments (jungles, mountians) and don`t want to be lens to be a weak spot on my K5 tank

For many years up until recently, many of the best photographs ever taken were taken with lenses and cameras that were not "Weather Resistant" from mountain peaks to the depths of jungles, and think of the searing photos from scenes like the Vietnam War....

Photographers used the best equipment they could at the time, and picked each others brains for techniques to protect their equipment accessories and film.

I feel sure that if "Weather Resistant" cameras and lenses were available then that the photographers would have used them, IF they were as strong rugged and reliable in other ways than just resistance moisture and dust ingress. (There are "old tales" of Nikon and Leica cameras and lenses being still useable after falling out of airplanes for example)

If you already have a K-5 you would surely want a similarly "Weather Resistant" lens for use in hostile environments, and would spend the extra on a Pentax WR lens.

(It would be interesting to see if someone with money and time could drop a few modern DSLRs and lenses out of planes, or kick them around the back of a 4x4 crossing the Sahara to see how they stand up to their "clockwrork brass and steel" ancestors....)

Graham.

[mysticcowboy]

I have the Tammy 17-50 and it takes beautiful photos, sharp, contrasty and saturated, even wide open. And, I have two wonderfully weather resistant cameras with no WR lenses. That seems a bit of a disconnect. I did buy the DA* 16-50 and sent it back. It was just plain out of focus. I could adjust for either the wide or long end, in camera, but not both. Thank you B&H for having a good return policy. Anyway, this is a long way to say maybe I should have tried another copy. I live in the Pacific Northwest, where it's wet 8 months out of the year. A good water resistant lens would be great.

[grahamcoad]

Good news SO FAR on my Sigma 17-50 f2.8 repair, in that I posted it yesterday afternoon, (UK Royal Mail, guaranteed next day delivery and insured) and have received an email from Sigma UK at 10.50 am today, that they have received it, read my covering letter, accepted it as an "under warranty" repair and issued a repair reference number.

Smart and speedy service so far from Royal Mail and Sigma..........

Graham.

[grahamcoad]

My Sigma 17-50 f2.8 is back in my hands from Sigma UK in 12 days, delivered this morning by courier, (very well packed).

They have replaced the HSM motor, reset, checked and tested the lens. I have made a few exposures in various lighting, at all focal lenths and all appears as it should.

I'll be giving it a good work out soon, but it looks like it is fixed!

What a relief!

Graham.

[grahamcoad]

Update.... The Sigma has not been off the camera. It works smoothly, quietly and properly at all times. I am VERY pleased with the results so far. (It DOES have a slightly loose lens hood, but that's easily sorted.)
It's Ironic that I went for a Sigma above Pentax's own 16-50 because of the Pentax's online reputation for dodgy AF motor, only to need the AF motor in my Sigma replaced right away!
Compared with the Pentax, the Sigma is the same weight to the gram, smaller by a few millimetres, same 77mm filter size, very similar in overall shape and appearance, and according to various revue sites, the Sigma "is at least equal to the Pentax in optical performance" (that's the polite way of discusing it on a Pentax forum)
Oh.....and my Sigma cost me £499, (currently $780) free shipping and 3 year Sigma guarantee.
Right that's enough Internet, I'm off out with the camera!

[grahamcoad]

Also took some shots at 22mm to compare with the Pentax DA21. My observations:

- Sigma is sharper than DA21 at 3.2
- Tamron is comparable to DA21 at 3.2

It is remarkable that modern zooms can at times outperform or equal fixed length primes and even the much vaunted "Limited" lenses. I know this test was about sharpness, and doesnt consider "Bokeh", small size, jewel like construction etc. but lens designers must be praised!

[tonyrodgers]

I don't know about Sigma lenses in general, but I am a big fan of the Sigma 70mm EX DG Macro. It's an excellent, well-made lens & it's IQ is on a par with the Pentax 100mm macro WR, which I also use. It has some pretty good reviews too...

[Sandy Hancock]

I have this exact combination and it works very well for my high-pressure live music work. The Sigma is an excellent all-rounder, but I would rather take a slew of limited primes to a desert island.

[ataunton]

I no longer own one, but I think the Sigma 17-50 is a great lens. I had no issues with it and the AF was fast and quiet. If I had any complaint it would be that I thought the colors were a bit cold compared to the Pentax lenses I had used. Below is a sample pic at 50mm/2.8. The only reason I sent it back was because of chance encounter with one of the FA Limited lenses. After that I decided to get the primes I wanted first and then if I felt the need for it I would get a standard zoom. In the event that I do decide to get one I will be repurchasing the Sigma. Given the recent price increase the Pentax 16-50 would not even be a consideration for me. In my opinion the Sigma is a quality lens and a good value.

[AndrewShirley]

I absolutely love my k5/Sigma 17-50 combo. I replaced my Tammy 28-75/2.8 with it recently due to the wide end and the HSM since I'm doing weddings this summer. Its sharp from wide open, fairly fast focusing and built well. In Lightroom 3.x the lens is not recognized. Its a large lens on the front of a K5, but I LOVE that... The larger the lens the cooler you look lol.

- Andrew

[grahamcoad]

Yes, I'm still pleased with my K-5 Sigma 17-50, though I came across a used SMC Pentax 50-135 f 2.8 at a great price too, so have added that for a more comprehensive 'outfit' (so its getting back to lugging a camera bag around again....TCH!.) so Its just a bit better than the 28mm to 200 mm range I had years ago with my 35mm film Pentaxes (then it was 28mm, 40mm, 50mm, and 80-200 zoom....1980)

I have heard a couple of people say the Sigma 17-50 is a "BIG" lens, and it IS larger than the 18-55mm kit lens AND the 16-45.. both of which I have used, BUT looking at the specifications here and elsewhere, the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and the Pentax 16-50 f2.8 are almost identical in sizes, weights and proportions and even LOOK very similar.. (Google them and "view images" in separate windows).

I have biggish hands and find myself carrying the K-5/Sigma by the lens in my left hand. It makes a reasonable package that I barely notice, BUT nothing like the great feel of a K-7/ K-5 with a small light prime lens on.

[AndrewShirley]

I've been eyeballing the 50-135 or Sigma 50-150 as a "comprehensive outfit"... how do you like the 50-135 as a compliment to the 17-50?

[grahamcoad]

I did quite a lot of online review reading as you would expect, and both lenses are supposed to be good, (and there really is only a small difference in 135 and 150mm focal lengths)
Physically there are similarities as they are within 1mm of being the same width and length.

As for weight, the Pentax is the lighter of the two by 85 grams. (The Sigma is, I think, discontinued, and the newer version with OS + HSM is not yet available in Pentax Mount.)

For me the choice was price driven, so I was looking for capable used lenses, and the Pentax dropped into my hands for £450 in "as new" condition.

Having got used to just the Sigma 17-50, the 50-135 is LONG with what to me looks like an overlong and incongruous scalloped hood that makes a modest tele zoom look a bit pretentious. (That's probably just me, I think the hood looks stupid!)

In use the 50-135 is a dream, silky smooth, quiet, and "quick-shift" always available manual focus is a boon, coming from a manual lens background I find myself using that without conscious thought.

Results? Mostly impressive, a few failures are down to operator error. Colours, contrast, clarity and sharpness are very satisfying, it is probably the best zoom telephoto I have ever used, and I think it is better than the telephoto primes I used in the film days.

I am very close though, to getting fast to that hideous lens hood with a hacksaw!

[AndrewShirley]

I like a very big hood and front element, I think it makes me look more professional lol. Unfortunately the used prices seem a little high right now with Pentax's recent price gouge so I'll keep my ear to the ground and see what comes up. It'll be one of the two and I think either will be a pearl in my collection. Thanks for the info!

[Sandy Hancock]

As long as it's not cutting off the edges at the lenses widest setting, surely the hood is doing its job well and the bigger the better. I'm a little concerned the hood on my Sigma 17-50 is a little shallow.