Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG Macro lens for Pentax

windflower · 08-25-2009, 07:05 PM

Hi, Yep. I bought me a Pentax K-7. I figured spending that much money indicates to me that I reckon I will get better physically than what I am now.

Is anyone familiar with this lens? Is it a pretty good one? Is it compatible with the K-7?

Thanks in advance.

Gailene

opiedog · 08-25-2009, 07:43 PM

i bought this lens but returned it.
here's a few reasons why:

1. 28 is not really wide enough
2. the aperture reported at 300 was 6.7 not 6.3
3. the widest focal length reported was 29 not 28

i don't know if there was a problem with just my copy, but i called sigma and they said the aperture being incorrectly reported is "normal". sorry, i didn't buy it.

sharpness wise, it's not bad, but i settled on a tamron 18-250 instead. much better IQ and wider too. yes, it's more expensive, but IMHO, it's worth it.

windflower · 08-25-2009, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by opiedog

i bought this lens but returned it.
here's a few reasons why:

1. 28 is not really wide enough
2. the aperture reported at 300 was 6.7 not 6.3
3. the widest focal length reported was 29 not 28

i don't know if there was a problem with just my copy, but i called sigma and they said the aperture being incorrectly reported is "normal". sorry, i didn't buy it.

sharpness wise, it's not bad, but i settled on a tamron 18-250 instead. much better IQ and wider too. yes, it's more expensive, but IMHO, it's worth it.

Thanks. I am definitely leaning towards the Tamron. Are you familiar with the AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di?

Marc Sabatella · 08-26-2009, 11:13 AM

It's a generally accepted fact that *none* of the 28-300 (or even 28-200) superzooms are anywhere near as good as the 18-250. And even if they were, the 18-28 range is *hugely* useful. That extra 10mm at wide end makes a *much* bigger difference than the extra 50mm at the long end. With an 18-250, you basically don't need another lens at all - at least, not based on focal length (you might still want another one when you need a larger aperture, macro capability, etc.) With a 28-300, you'd good for maybe about 80% of the shots most people take, but you're totally stuck when you want to go wider. Unless you're getting the 28-300 for free, I'd say skip it.

windflower · 08-26-2009, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

It's a generally accepted fact that *none* of the 28-300 (or even 28-200) superzooms are anywhere near as good as the 18-250. And even if they were, the 18-28 range is *hugely* useful. That extra 10mm at wide end makes a *much* bigger difference than the extra 50mm at the long end. With an 18-250, you basically don't need another lens at all - at least, not based on focal length (you might still want another one when you need a larger aperture, macro capability, etc.) With a 28-300, you'd good for maybe about 80% of the shots most people take, but you're totally stuck when you want to go wider. Unless you're getting the 28-300 for free, I'd say skip it.

Thanks. I have decided to skip the 28-300 and go with an 18-250. Next thing to decide is Tamron or Pentax.

audiobomber · 08-27-2009, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by windflower

Thanks. I have decided to skip the 28-300 and go with an 18-250. Next thing to decide is Tamron or Pentax.

Tamron and Pentax 18-250 are the same lens, but may or may not have the same coatings and may or may not have the same electronic chip. There was some discussion in the other forum about whether a K-7 will apply lens corrections to a non-Pentax-branded lens. Although a K-7 seems to recognize a Tamron 18-250, it is not clear so far whether it will actually correct it. And believe me, there is some correcting to be done at 18mm.

I'm only half kidding about that, but it is a star performer and as far as I've heard is not surpassed by anyone's superzoom.

Unless you can determine for sure that you get the auto-correct feature with a Tamron-branded lens, I'd say go the safe route and stick with Pentax.

windflower · 08-27-2009, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

Tamron and Pentax 18-250 are the same lens, but may or may not have the same coatings and may or may not have the same electronic chip. There was some discussion in the other forum about whether a K-7 will apply lens corrections to a non-Pentax-branded lens. Although a K-7 seems to recognize a Tamron 18-250, it is not clear so far whether it will actually correct it. And believe me, there is some correcting to be done at 18mm.

I'm only half kidding about that, but it is a star performer and as far as I've heard is not surpassed by anyone's superzoom.

Unless you can determine for sure that you get the auto-correct feature with a Tamron-branded lens, I'd say go the safe route and stick with Pentax.

Thank you. I have been able to find the Pentax lens at a lower price than the Tamron, which surprised me somewhat.

08-25-2009, 07:05 PM	#1
windflower Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 24	Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG Macro lens for Pentax Hi, Yep. I bought me a Pentax K-7. I figured spending that much money indicates to me that I reckon I will get better physically than what I am now. Is anyone familiar with this lens? Is it a pretty good one? Is it compatible with the K-7? Thanks in advance. Gailene

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 55-300mm versus Sigma 70-300mm DG APO Macro	mazdamazda	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	49	07-27-2010 12:46 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma DL Macro Super 70-300mm f/4-5.6 1:2 Macro Lens, Worldwide Ship!	wallyb	Sold Items	10	12-16-2009 10:36 PM
For Sale - Sold: SIGMA APO 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG MACRO lens	ksignorini	Sold Items	0	08-25-2008 09:05 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS - Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG Macro Lens	stewart_photo	Sold Items	4	07-19-2007 03:41 PM

08-25-2009, 07:43 PM	#2
opiedog Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NC Posts: 787	i bought this lens but returned it. here's a few reasons why: 1. 28 is not really wide enough 2. the aperture reported at 300 was 6.7 not 6.3 3. the widest focal length reported was 29 not 28 i don't know if there was a problem with just my copy, but i called sigma and they said the aperture being incorrectly reported is "normal". sorry, i didn't buy it. sharpness wise, it's not bad, but i settled on a tamron 18-250 instead. much better IQ and wider too. yes, it's more expensive, but IMHO, it's worth it.

08-25-2009, 08:16 PM	#3
windflower Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 24 Original Poster	Originally posted by opiedog i bought this lens but returned it. here's a few reasons why: 1. 28 is not really wide enough 2. the aperture reported at 300 was 6.7 not 6.3 3. the widest focal length reported was 29 not 28 i don't know if there was a problem with just my copy, but i called sigma and they said the aperture being incorrectly reported is "normal". sorry, i didn't buy it. sharpness wise, it's not bad, but i settled on a tamron 18-250 instead. much better IQ and wider too. yes, it's more expensive, but IMHO, it's worth it. Thanks. I am definitely leaning towards the Tamron. Are you familiar with the AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di?

08-26-2009, 11:13 AM	#4
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	It's a generally accepted fact that none of the 28-300 (or even 28-200) superzooms are anywhere near as good as the 18-250. And even if they were, the 18-28 range is hugely useful. That extra 10mm at wide end makes a much bigger difference than the extra 50mm at the long end. With an 18-250, you basically don't need another lens at all - at least, not based on focal length (you might still want another one when you need a larger aperture, macro capability, etc.) With a 28-300, you'd good for maybe about 80% of the shots most people take, but you're totally stuck when you want to go wider. Unless you're getting the 28-300 for free, I'd say skip it.

08-26-2009, 05:21 PM	#5
windflower Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 24 Original Poster	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella It's a generally accepted fact that none of the 28-300 (or even 28-200) superzooms are anywhere near as good as the 18-250. And even if they were, the 18-28 range is hugely useful. That extra 10mm at wide end makes a much bigger difference than the extra 50mm at the long end. With an 18-250, you basically don't need another lens at all - at least, not based on focal length (you might still want another one when you need a larger aperture, macro capability, etc.) With a 28-300, you'd good for maybe about 80% of the shots most people take, but you're totally stuck when you want to go wider. Unless you're getting the 28-300 for free, I'd say skip it. Thanks. I have decided to skip the 28-300 and go with an 18-250. Next thing to decide is Tamron or Pentax.

08-27-2009, 02:40 PM	#6
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by windflower Thanks. I have decided to skip the 28-300 and go with an 18-250. Next thing to decide is Tamron or Pentax. Tamron and Pentax 18-250 are the same lens, but may or may not have the same coatings and may or may not have the same electronic chip. There was some discussion in the other forum about whether a K-7 will apply lens corrections to a non-Pentax-branded lens. Although a K-7 seems to recognize a Tamron 18-250, it is not clear so far whether it will actually correct it. And believe me, there is some correcting to be done at 18mm. I'm only half kidding about that, but it is a star performer and as far as I've heard is not surpassed by anyone's superzoom. Unless you can determine for sure that you get the auto-correct feature with a Tamron-branded lens, I'd say go the safe route and stick with Pentax.

08-27-2009, 08:04 PM	#7
windflower Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 24 Original Poster	Originally posted by audiobomber Tamron and Pentax 18-250 are the same lens, but may or may not have the same coatings and may or may not have the same electronic chip. There was some discussion in the other forum about whether a K-7 will apply lens corrections to a non-Pentax-branded lens. Although a K-7 seems to recognize a Tamron 18-250, it is not clear so far whether it will actually correct it. And believe me, there is some correcting to be done at 18mm. I'm only half kidding about that, but it is a star performer and as far as I've heard is not surpassed by anyone's superzoom. Unless you can determine for sure that you get the auto-correct feature with a Tamron-branded lens, I'd say go the safe route and stick with Pentax. Thank you. I have been able to find the Pentax lens at a lower price than the Tamron, which surprised me somewhat.