Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Lens Now Available

openyourap · 07-14-2010, 07:46 PM

According to this news release, the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM lens is now available in Canon mount, with Pentax to follow in the coming weeks.

They list the MSRP as $980.

Zebooka · 07-14-2010, 09:36 PM

Sigma is doing what Pentax can't - relatively cheap, sharp, EXcelent lens with ring HSM and optical stabilizer.

LOL and shame

Christopher M.W.T · 07-14-2010, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Zebooka

Sigma is doing what Pentax can't - relatively cheap, sharp, EXcelent lens with ring HSM and optical stabilizer.

LOL and shame

Does come down to economies of scale to though.

Sigma can mass produce and make an almost identical lens for Nikon, Canon, Pentax Sony.

Pentax can only make for Pentax and can't mass produce in the way Canon or Nikon does.

openyourap · 07-14-2010, 10:44 PM

The DA*16-50 is now below $750 at Adorama and B&H, so Sigma would need some heavy discounting to stay in the game.

There's some differentiation between the two- some people don't like pentax SDM; others don't need the Pentax weatherproofing; I for one would appreciate the Sigma's smaller size.

I think they've pitched the price to be competitive with the professional lines of the big two manufacturers. All things considered, I'd go with the Pentax glass at the price Sigma is proposing.

robjmitchell · 07-15-2010, 01:25 AM

Here in Aus the sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM is $819 and the pentax 16-50/2.8 is Aus$1400!

**Aristophanes** · 07-15-2010, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Zebooka

Sigma is doing what Pentax can't - relatively cheap, sharp, EXcelent lens with ring HSM and optical stabilizer.

LOL and shame

Cheap? Hmmm..... at street price well over US$600, this is not a "cheap" lens. Fills the gap between the Tamron 17-50 and the DA*16-50.

Zebooka · 07-15-2010, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Cheap? Hmmm..... at street price well over US$600, this is not a "cheap" lens. Fills the gap between the Tamron 17-50 and the DA*16-50.

In Russia DA* 16-50/2.8 costs $1500

I bought my Sigma 18-50 at price three times lower that DA* price.

Also main accent in my sentence was not on price but - HSM and OS

thibs · 07-15-2010, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Zebooka

In Russia DA* 16-50/2.8 costs $1500

I bought my Sigma 18-50 at price three times lower that DA* price.

Also main accent in my sentence was not on price but - HSM and OS

OS would be not very clever, expensive and stupid from a marketing PoV since Pentax cameras are stabilized already.
Not absolutely mandatory on a wide/normal lens btw (though it is always good to have I agree).

kytra · 07-15-2010, 05:58 AM

i found the in-lens OS to work much slower than the in-body one, at least for the K7. Thus I agree that the in-lens is good mainly for tele, since it also stabilizes the VF image whilst the in body is more usefull in mid range/portraits.

farfisa · 07-15-2010, 06:51 AM

I doubt it will cost anywhere near that at retail. The new 17-70/2.8-4 is listed at $680 MSRP and retails for $449. So, funky backwards math puts the retail price closer to $649.

But for Sigma to call it "ultra compact" and have it only 1/4" shorter than the 16-50 and the same weight is going a little far. Oh wait, for a Sigma, that IS ultra compact!

**janosh** · 07-15-2010, 06:51 AM

Pentax obviously could make lenses with Canon and Nikon mounts if they wanted to do that.

Pentax made lenses with Leica screw thread mounts, sold them instantly, and have a great reputation among Leica users.

I think their business decisions boil down to two markets: undemanding/low quality and demanding/high quality. Minolta did that with their standard lenses and their "Celtic" junque.

Chaitanya · 07-15-2010, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Zebooka

Sigma is doing what Pentax can't - relatively cheap, sharp, EXcelent lens with ring HSM and optical stabilizer.

LOL and shame

Estimated street price over 600USD is not a cheap price for the lens. Also according to review on photozone.de(Canon Mount)Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 HSM DC EX OS - Review / Test Report this lens is an excellent performer. Only if this lens had a WR seals then it would make a perfect replacement for the infamous DA* 16-50 f/2.8. Also sadly very few people in India now sell lenses for Pentax.

**NaClH2O** · 07-15-2010, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by janosh

Pentax obviously could make lenses with Canon and Nikon mounts if they wanted to do that.

Pentax made lenses with Leica screw thread mounts, sold them instantly, and have a great reputation among Leica users.

I think their business decisions boil down to two markets: undemanding/low quality and demanding/high quality. Minolta did that with their standard lenses and their "Celtic" junque.

Well, to be truthful, I don't think that either Canon or Nikon would license out the rights to Pentax for their mounts. So the real correct answer is they can make lenses with those mounts but are not allowed to do so. It's like GM making wheels for Fords.

NaCl(just to be absolutely correct)H2O

**Rondec** · 07-15-2010, 07:54 AM

Well, Sigma doesn't pay licensing fees. I guess they just do some kind of reverse engineering to get their lenses to work. I do think that the addition of HSM and OS adds cost to these lenses for little additional benefit. If you could get the lens without these for a couple hundred cheaper, why wouldn't you?

DogLover · 07-15-2010, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by kytra

i found the in-lens OS to work much slower than the in-body one, at least for the K7. Thus I agree that the in-lens is good mainly for tele, since it also stabilizes the VF image whilst the in body is more usefull in mid range/portraits.

This is a surprising (to me) but important observation. I guess I had come to believe that OS was pretty much always superior to SR. Good to know.

07-14-2010, 07:46 PM	#1
openyourap Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 171	Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Lens Now Available According to this news release, the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM lens is now available in Canon mount, with Pentax to follow in the coming weeks. They list the MSRP as $980.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 18-50mm f2.8-4.5 OS HSM (US)	opiedog	Sold Items	9	09-22-2010 09:55 AM
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
Sigma 50mm EX DG HSM F1.4 Lens First Impression	mcjm78	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	08-29-2009 04:59 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

07-14-2010, 09:36 PM	#2
Zebooka Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Russia, Siberia, Novosibirsk Posts: 323	Sigma is doing what Pentax can't - relatively cheap, sharp, EXcelent lens with ring HSM and optical stabilizer. LOL and shame

07-14-2010, 10:13 PM	#3
Christopher M.W.T Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,689	Originally posted by Zebooka Sigma is doing what Pentax can't - relatively cheap, sharp, EXcelent lens with ring HSM and optical stabilizer. LOL and shame Does come down to economies of scale to though. Sigma can mass produce and make an almost identical lens for Nikon, Canon, Pentax Sony. Pentax can only make for Pentax and can't mass produce in the way Canon or Nikon does.

07-14-2010, 10:44 PM	#4
openyourap Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 171 Original Poster	The DA*16-50 is now below $750 at Adorama and B&H, so Sigma would need some heavy discounting to stay in the game. There's some differentiation between the two- some people don't like pentax SDM; others don't need the Pentax weatherproofing; I for one would appreciate the Sigma's smaller size. I think they've pitched the price to be competitive with the professional lines of the big two manufacturers. All things considered, I'd go with the Pentax glass at the price Sigma is proposing.

07-15-2010, 01:25 AM	#5
robjmitchell Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne Aus Posts: 1,776	Here in Aus the sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM is $819 and the pentax 16-50/2.8 is Aus$1400!

07-15-2010, 03:35 AM	#6
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Zebooka Sigma is doing what Pentax can't - relatively cheap, sharp, EXcelent lens with ring HSM and optical stabilizer. LOL and shame Cheap? Hmmm..... at street price well over US$600, this is not a "cheap" lens. Fills the gap between the Tamron 17-50 and the DA*16-50.

07-15-2010, 04:54 AM	#7
Zebooka Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Russia, Siberia, Novosibirsk Posts: 323	Originally posted by Aristophanes Cheap? Hmmm..... at street price well over US$600, this is not a "cheap" lens. Fills the gap between the Tamron 17-50 and the DA16-50. In Russia DA 16-50/2.8 costs $1500 I bought my Sigma 18-50 at price three times lower that DA* price. Also main accent in my sentence was not on price but - HSM and OS

07-15-2010, 05:02 AM	#8
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Zebooka In Russia DA* 16-50/2.8 costs $1500 I bought my Sigma 18-50 at price three times lower that DA* price. Also main accent in my sentence was not on price but - HSM and OS OS would be not very clever, expensive and stupid from a marketing PoV since Pentax cameras are stabilized already. Not absolutely mandatory on a wide/normal lens btw (though it is always good to have I agree).

07-15-2010, 05:58 AM	#9
kytra Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Bucharest Posts: 482	i found the in-lens OS to work much slower than the in-body one, at least for the K7. Thus I agree that the in-lens is good mainly for tele, since it also stabilizes the VF image whilst the in body is more usefull in mid range/portraits.

07-15-2010, 06:51 AM	#10
farfisa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,274	I doubt it will cost anywhere near that at retail. The new 17-70/2.8-4 is listed at $680 MSRP and retails for $449. So, funky backwards math puts the retail price closer to $649. But for Sigma to call it "ultra compact" and have it only 1/4" shorter than the 16-50 and the same weight is going a little far. Oh wait, for a Sigma, that IS ultra compact!

07-15-2010, 06:51 AM	#11
janosh Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 243	Pentax obviously could make lenses with Canon and Nikon mounts if they wanted to do that. Pentax made lenses with Leica screw thread mounts, sold them instantly, and have a great reputation among Leica users. I think their business decisions boil down to two markets: undemanding/low quality and demanding/high quality. Minolta did that with their standard lenses and their "Celtic" junque.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-15-2010, 06:58 AM	#12
Chaitanya Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Pune Photos: Gallery Posts: 80	Originally posted by Zebooka Sigma is doing what Pentax can't - relatively cheap, sharp, EXcelent lens with ring HSM and optical stabilizer. LOL and shame Estimated street price over 600USD is not a cheap price for the lens. Also according to review on photozone.de(Canon Mount)Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 HSM DC EX OS - Review / Test Report this lens is an excellent performer. Only if this lens had a WR seals then it would make a perfect replacement for the infamous DA* 16-50 f/2.8. Also sadly very few people in India now sell lenses for Pentax.

07-15-2010, 07:42 AM	#13
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Originally posted by janosh Pentax obviously could make lenses with Canon and Nikon mounts if they wanted to do that. Pentax made lenses with Leica screw thread mounts, sold them instantly, and have a great reputation among Leica users. I think their business decisions boil down to two markets: undemanding/low quality and demanding/high quality. Minolta did that with their standard lenses and their "Celtic" junque. Well, to be truthful, I don't think that either Canon or Nikon would license out the rights to Pentax for their mounts. So the real correct answer is they can make lenses with those mounts but are not allowed to do so. It's like GM making wheels for Fords. NaCl(just to be absolutely correct)H2O

07-15-2010, 07:54 AM	#14
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Well, Sigma doesn't pay licensing fees. I guess they just do some kind of reverse engineering to get their lenses to work. I do think that the addition of HSM and OS adds cost to these lenses for little additional benefit. If you could get the lens without these for a couple hundred cheaper, why wouldn't you?

07-15-2010, 09:28 AM	#15
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by kytra i found the in-lens OS to work much slower than the in-body one, at least for the K7. Thus I agree that the in-lens is good mainly for tele, since it also stabilizes the VF image whilst the in body is more usefull in mid range/portraits. This is a surprising (to me) but important observation. I guess I had come to believe that OS was pretty much always superior to SR. Good to know.