[creampuff]

1) Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 18mm f/3.5 ZK

Link here:Carl Zeiss announces new 18mm super wide angle lens
for SLR cameras

2) Sigma 18-125mm F3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM

Link here:High ratio zoom lens housed in a compact construction and incorporating Sigma's original OS (Optical Stabilizer) function. 18-125mm F3.8-5.6 DC OS - SIGMA CORPORATION

ŽèƒuƒŒ•â�³‹@�\‚ð“‹�Ú‚µ‚½�AƒRƒ“ƒpƒNƒg‚È�‚”{—¦ƒY�[ƒ€ƒŒƒ“ƒY 18-125mm F3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM�@Š”Ž®‰ïŽÐƒVƒOƒ}

Test images: ƒVƒOƒ}�u18-125mm F3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM�v

[Gooshin]

ohh great, more useless lenses

why dont they make something cool, like a 10mm F2.8 rectalinear prime, or a 16-50 F1.8 zoom

or hey, some super fast primes like a 30-35mm that are F1.4 or F1.2

i mean, hey, Canon has an F0.95 50mm... why cant pentax?

sigh...



18mm F3.5? thats so low-ball, considering we already have a 14mm F2.8 and a 21mm F3.2 (or 20mm F2.8 if you're lucky), so this thing totaly misses the mark.

[dantuyhoa]

How about 100-300 at a constant F2.8 !

Or Sigma could have that 120-300/2.8 for the Pentax mount !

Man can dream , eh ?

[creampuff]

Er... Mr Putin, there are people who have a preference for Carl Zeiss and Sigma. Anyway the common complaint of not enough lenses for Pentax mount is being slowly addressed, is it not?

[Gooshin]

seriously now, how much better do you think the 18mm will be compared to the current 14mm?

also while 3mm is quite a bit, people (like Ben for isntance) have noted that the DA21 actualy works even better on the K20D, so i guess it had hidden resolving power!

and even now, both lenses are superb

then you have competition from the zoom side, the 12-24, you sacrafice 0.5 of a stop for much versatility, and the obvious 16/17/-50mm F2.8 zooms we have now.

again, how much better are you expecting the IQ on this lens to be? From my slight observation i have noted that while good, the Carl lenses are not show stoppers, atleast not for the price they are sold at for the features you get.

[MRRiley]

First off.... 18MM isnt "super-wide angle" on an APS-C Digital SLR. heck its not even really "super-wide" on a 35mm camera...

and second... f3.8 is unremarkable on an 18mm lens and f5.6 is rather abysmal for 125mm...

I agree with Gooshin. These are rather ho-hum lenses. We don't need more of the same lenses just made by different companies. We need faster primes in extreme focal lengths (wide & tele) and more and faster constant aperture zooms.

[Art Vandelay II]

I assume that's the same Sigma lens that was announced back in January right?

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM: Digital Photography Review

I wouldn't say that is a useless lens any more then I would say the Pentax DA 18-55mm is a useless lens. I've seen plenty of great shots with "slow" lenses. If you just want a nice walk around lens with (hopefully) good sharpness with lower distortion than the 18-2XX's then that Sigma looks just about perfect. In fact I've been giving it plenty of thought ever since they announced it. I just want to see some reviews on it first. I could easily cruise around with that mounted on my camera 90% of the time then switch to a DA40 limited or DA70 limited when I have time take something important.

[Gooshin]

so you spend 90% of your time taking non important pictures?

cuz basicaly you affirmed that this lens is lackluster by calling it slow, and you further insulted it by saying that when you really want a good shot you would turn to another lens, and yet, you say this is a good lens? :S

[Art Vandelay II]

You're reading too much into the details there. I simply meant that when walking around one doesn't have time to switch primes on a seconds notice, so for time sensitive street shooting a large range zoom, even a slow one is better than fumbling around with a bag of fast primes and miss the shot all together.

Then in instances whether it be studio, still life, landscapes or portrait work then sure, break out the primes for the higher quality and take your time and enjoy yourself.

Plus not every photo taken is "high art". Some people like to use zoom like that to shoot test frames to get the angle right then switch to a prime. Then others simply take family portraits at family reunions where razor sharpness really isn't that big of a concern.

[creampuff]

One shouldn't judge a lens simply by the printed specs alone.
There are other factors to consider like resolution, distortion correction, colour rendition, flare resistance, size, weight, build quality, ease of focusing, etc. Not to mention other more subjective criteria like prestige factor, re-sale value, rarity, value for money, warranty, etc.

Anyway going by the 7mm progression for Pentax prime lenses in the wide to normal range (14, 21, 28, 35, 43), there doesn't seem much point for me to consider the CZ Distagon. On the other hand the Sigma might be a strong contender in the superzoom category.

[Gooshin]

You're reading too much into the details there. I simply meant that when walking around one doesn't have time to switch primes on a seconds notice, so for time sensitive street shooting a large range zoom, even a slow one is better than fumbling around with a bag of fast primes and miss the shot all together.

i would rather have a good zoom to begin with so that i would never have to worry about such a thing

Then in instances whether it be studio, still life, landscapes or portrait work then sure, break out the primes for the higher quality and take your time and enjoy yourself.

thats not the issue here, the issue is what will be the supposed IQ of these lenses that would warrent anyone to buy them considering there already exist alternatives.

Plus not every photo taken is "high art". Some people like to use zoom like that to shoot test frames to get the angle right then switch to a prime. Then others simply take family portraits at family reunions where razor sharpness really isn't that big of a concern.

those to whom IQ and high level of professional versatility (not to call myself a professional) dont really interest me, plus, they would be better off buying one of the many 18-200mm options and the now 18-250 option, same bananas really.

[Gooshin]

One shouldn't judge a lens simply by the printed specs alone.
There are other factors to consider like resolution, distortion correction, colour rendition, flare resistance, size, weight, build quality, ease of focusing, etc. Not to mention other more subjective criteria like prestige factor, re-sale value, rarity, value for money, warranty, etc..

thats all i'm asking really, if you believe that all of those factors will be high enough to justify the production of such a lens.

Anyway going by the 7mm progression for Pentax prime lenses in the wide to normal range (14, 21, 28, 35, 43), there doesn't seem much point for me to consider the CZ Distagon. On the other hand the Sigma might be a strong contender in the superzoom category.

contender? dont they already have a bunch, particulary the 18-200 mm?? LOL

[Art Vandelay II]

thats not the issue here, the issue is what will be the supposed IQ of these lenses that would warrent anyone to buy them considering there already exist alternatives.

If you can find a close alternative to the Sigma 18-125 HSM for Pentax then I'm all ears. The new DA 17-70 SDM coming out might be consider an alternative. However aside from that I don't know of a single "big zoom" for pentax in the $400 or less price range with HSM/SDM built in. There are plenty of non-HSM/SDM zooms around, but very few with it. You've got the DA* 16-50 and 50-135, but the $650+ price tags put them out of the league of this sigma. So until the 17-70 SDM arrives there really isnt anything else unless you want to go screw drive.

Plus, I'm not arguing on behalf of the Zeiss lens...I see no more use for it then anyone else does.

i would rather have a good zoom to begin with so that i would never have to worry about such a thing

We would all love something like a 16-85mm constant f/4 with SDM and weather sealing, but the $800+ price tag and large size/weight that would accompany a lens like that would put it clear out of the market of this Sigma.

they would be better off buying one of the many 18-200mm options and the now 18-250 option, same bananas

For some people that will be the case for sure, however others like me value lower distortions and sharper images over truly extreme zooms. Now if this Sigma lens turns out to be no better than the 18-2XX's after it gets tested then sure, I agree, it is pointless. But sigma knows that, so I have to assume it has better IQ then it's in-house 18-200 brother.

[Gooshin]

We would all love something like a 16-85mm constant f/4 with SDM and weather sealing, but the $800+ price tag and large size/weight that would accompany a lens like that would put it clear out of the market of this Sigma.

i would gladly pay 800 dollars for such a lens

hell, i would gladly pay 1000-1200 dollars for a 16-90ish F2.8 lens

assuming the IQ is top notch,

why you ask? comperative pricing.

1200 dollars for a lens is expensive

1200 dollars for a lens that would otherwise replace the 3-4 primes you have costing 400-500 each all of a sudden seems like a good deal.

this is why i'm planning on trying out the DA*16-50, since i dont shoot below F2.8 (or even 4 for that matter), and my tests proove the IQ sufficient, i can sell my 18mm, 21mm, 28mm, 35mm and my 43 mm, giving me better versatility, SDM/HSM, and some money in my pocket!

[Art Vandelay II]

i would gladly pay 800 dollars for such a lens

I would too. I've even pondered switching to Nikon ever since they came out with their 16-85mm. It's not a constant f/4 unfortunately, but from the reviews I've read it is wonderful lens.

To me size does matter though. As much as I'd like an f/2.8 16-90 (is that even physically possible?), I'm sure the size of such a lens would turn me off. I have no desire to lug a glass and metal brick around everywhere I go. That's why something lightweight like that Sigma with a lightweight prime or two stuffed in my pocket will suffice for me until my dream lens is made.