Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs 16-45 F4

TFTM · 10-26-2007, 09:53 AM

Anyone have any experiences with these lenses? I am on the fence as to which one would be better choice for a primary zoom? The Sigma has the speed and the close focusing but the Pentax has the ideal range.

Your thoughts would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance

-RP

little laker · 10-26-2007, 10:22 AM

Nope, but it looks like I'll be getting a Sigma 24-70 soon.

I placed the order yesterday.
It's a little shorter than I'd like, but I think that it'll be a good lens for the weddings I'm shooting next year.

Plus they're going on sale in Canada

kay · 10-26-2007, 11:19 AM

The Sigma is HUGE! I could never live with it for two reasons: its size would mean I'd only ever put it on if I really needed it, and I could never live with only 24mm of "wide angle". For a walk-around lens, my 16-45 is compact and serves me perfectly. I just spent 3 weeks in Europe with the 16-45, 50/1.4 and the 50-200, and I took 99% of all photos with the 16-45.

qdoan · 10-26-2007, 11:51 AM

I've never used the 16-45 but I own the Sigma 24-70.

It's a great lens, although bit bulky.. and uses 82 mm filters!

The one thing I have noticed is that it tends to be a bit soft at the edges wide open.

During the wedding.. for the most part, 24mm was wide enough, but at times it made think that I should've gotten the 17-70 f2.8-4 It does get the job done though!

axl · 10-26-2007, 01:53 PM

hi TFTM,
I was asking about the very same sigma just about week ago on this forum.
Here is the link for the thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/13711-sigma-tamron.html
Not many good reviews/recommendation. But I'm still considering it. What is concerning for me though, is 82 mm filter thread. CPL will be quite expensive for that size and I'll have to check if my Cokin P series will work.
Anyway, people are recommending Tamron 28-75 f2.8, apparently better lens.
If you'll end up with the sigma, let us know how it is...
the same for Stu (little laker)....
regards

AndrewG NY · 10-26-2007, 02:01 PM

I don't want to knock the DA 16-45 f/4 because it is very useful on APS-C-sensored D-SLRs. I have been tending to use it when shooting in locations where I'm likely to frequently need the wider angle, for example in interiors or urban locations where I may not be able to just step back to fit everything I want in. When shooting in the great outdoors however, I am finding that the moderately wide 24mm end of my FA 24-90 works pretty well.

I have to assume that the main reason you're considering the 24-70 is that you want the f/2.8 speed. I would suggest looking at the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 as well. It isn't nearly as bulky as the 24-70 (uses 77mm filters, the same as a complementary DA 12-24), and on D-SLR I think you're less likely to miss the 10mm (between 60-70mm) difference in reach.

Buddha Jones · 10-26-2007, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Anyway, people are recommending Tamron 28-75 f2.8, apparently better lens.

Most definitely!!

SuperAkuma · 10-26-2007, 11:37 PM

I have the sigma and I love that lens but hate the size of it. One of the reason why I bought that lens was the f/2.8 all the way. I do a lot of indoors and it is nice to have a fast lens.

Again the thing that I hate about it is the size. It is pretty big, heavy and use a really big filter. I will admit, I got used to the weight for a while and had that lens on the body about 90% of the time. But lately I've been using my super wide Sigma 10-20mm and love the size of that. Don't take it like I am a weak little guy. I am a pretty big 6 foot, tall 280lb guy. Also another thing is you can't use the internal flash on your camera at 24mm or you will get a shadow. This is only a problem if you use internal flash. Does not bother me because I don't use it. Other then those flaw, it is a great lens. I just wish it was lighter.

I am thinking about selling this lens and plan to get the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 which is a little bit smaller and lighter. I hope it is just as good.

Mikhail · 10-27-2007, 06:32 AM

"Anyway, people are recommending Tamron 28-75 f2.8, apparently better lens."

Ditto! Although I think maybe the range is wrong for the OP. The 17-50mm F2.8 would probably suit you best... if they made it in a K-mount!

Thanks

TFTM · 10-27-2007, 11:01 AM

Thanks for the comments so far guys.

A number of you have deduced the reason I am considering the Sigma is because of the constant f2.8 aperture. I am trying to establish myself as a wedding photographer and I think this would be an ideal lens. My reasoning for this is that I shot a wedding not too long ago with 24mm Nikon and it was sufficiently wide for me, even for group shots. The Tamron I think is too long on the wide end and the DA* is too hit or miss to consider right now.

So it seems down to between Sigma and Tamron.

I would like to ask for users of either lens to post some pictures so perhaps there can be a consensus as to which is the better lens IQ wise. Perhaps there can be some discussion regarding 24mm (36mm) vs 28mm (42mm). In the past I used to use P&S film cameras that were fixed at 36 and 38 and it didn't bother me. But for some reason 42mm does. Maybe I'm losing my marbles. Perhaps some discussion can clear that up,,,,

-spam- · 10-27-2007, 03:17 PM

[QUOTE=AndrewG NY;110885I would suggest looking at the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 as well. It isn't nearly as bulky as the 24-70 (uses 77mm filters, the same as a complementary DA 12-24), and on D-SLR I think you're less likely to miss the 10mm (between 60-70mm) difference in reach.[/QUOTE]

Most definitely. Ive got one and it compliments my 10-20 quite well and being able to share filters between the two is a big bonus.

Its much smaller and lighter than the 24-70. The AF is certainly not too bad and it performs better than a lot of lenses ive used. Its also not too bad wide open at all focal lengths (in my eyes, i dont pixel peep so i cant say for sure)

offertonhatter · 10-27-2007, 04:35 PM

I've got the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 and although huge (I call it the Mini-Bigma :-) ) it is an excellent lens. Sure it is a little soft at the edges wide open, but I dont mind that due to the way I use it. However from F8 to F16 it is pin sharp.

Finally although it is big, I find it a joy to hold especially as it is nicely balanced with my K10D and Battery Grip.

Worth looking at.

Now to get hold of an ultra wide :-)

10-26-2007, 09:53 AM	#1
TFTM Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 36	Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs 16-45 F4 Anyone have any experiences with these lenses? I am on the fence as to which one would be better choice for a primary zoom? The Sigma has the speed and the close focusing but the Pentax has the ideal range. Your thoughts would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance -RP

10-26-2007, 01:53 PM	#5
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	sigma 24-70 hi TFTM, I was asking about the very same sigma just about week ago on this forum. Here is the link for the thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/13711-sigma-tamron.html Not many good reviews/recommendation. But I'm still considering it. What is concerning for me though, is 82 mm filter thread. CPL will be quite expensive for that size and I'll have to check if my Cokin P series will work. Anyway, people are recommending Tamron 28-75 f2.8, apparently better lens. If you'll end up with the sigma, let us know how it is... the same for Stu (little laker).... regards

10-26-2007, 02:01 PM	#6
AndrewG NY Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Chappaqua, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 688	Consider Sigma 24-60 as well I don't want to knock the DA 16-45 f/4 because it is very useful on APS-C-sensored D-SLRs. I have been tending to use it when shooting in locations where I'm likely to frequently need the wider angle, for example in interiors or urban locations where I may not be able to just step back to fit everything I want in. When shooting in the great outdoors however, I am finding that the moderately wide 24mm end of my FA 24-90 works pretty well. I have to assume that the main reason you're considering the 24-70 is that you want the f/2.8 speed. I would suggest looking at the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 as well. It isn't nearly as bulky as the 24-70 (uses 77mm filters, the same as a complementary DA 12-24), and on D-SLR I think you're less likely to miss the 10mm (between 60-70mm) difference in reach.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K20D, D-BG2 grip, Sigma 17-70, Sigma 10-20, SMC Takumar 1000mm	deadwolfbones	Sold Items	23	10-21-2009 02:57 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax AF-540FGZ Flash, Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6, Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3	davebest	Sold Items	12	06-25-2009 02:48 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Lens Blowout; 50mm 1.4, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 400mm, etc.	nufenstein	Sold Items	13	03-30-2009 12:00 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: FA 77mm limited, Sigma 17-70mm DC Macro, Sigma 70-300mm APO DG	chemxaj	Sold Items	10	03-17-2008 08:55 AM

10-26-2007, 10:22 AM	#2
little laker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,697	Nope, but it looks like I'll be getting a Sigma 24-70 soon. I placed the order yesterday. It's a little shorter than I'd like, but I think that it'll be a good lens for the weddings I'm shooting next year. Plus they're going on sale in Canada

10-26-2007, 11:19 AM	#3
kay Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Johannesburg, South Africa Posts: 40	The Sigma is HUGE! I could never live with it for two reasons: its size would mean I'd only ever put it on if I really needed it, and I could never live with only 24mm of "wide angle". For a walk-around lens, my 16-45 is compact and serves me perfectly. I just spent 3 weeks in Europe with the 16-45, 50/1.4 and the 50-200, and I took 99% of all photos with the 16-45.

10-26-2007, 11:51 AM	#4
qdoan Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Peoria, AZ Posts: 207	I've never used the 16-45 but I own the Sigma 24-70. It's a great lens, although bit bulky.. and uses 82 mm filters! The one thing I have noticed is that it tends to be a bit soft at the edges wide open. During the wedding.. for the most part, 24mm was wide enough, but at times it made think that I should've gotten the 17-70 f2.8-4 It does get the job done though!

10-26-2007, 06:41 PM	#7
Buddha Jones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,587	Quote: Anyway, people are recommending Tamron 28-75 f2.8, apparently better lens. Most definitely!!

10-26-2007, 11:37 PM	#8
SuperAkuma Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 445	I have the sigma and I love that lens but hate the size of it. One of the reason why I bought that lens was the f/2.8 all the way. I do a lot of indoors and it is nice to have a fast lens. Again the thing that I hate about it is the size. It is pretty big, heavy and use a really big filter. I will admit, I got used to the weight for a while and had that lens on the body about 90% of the time. But lately I've been using my super wide Sigma 10-20mm and love the size of that. Don't take it like I am a weak little guy. I am a pretty big 6 foot, tall 280lb guy. Also another thing is you can't use the internal flash on your camera at 24mm or you will get a shadow. This is only a problem if you use internal flash. Does not bother me because I don't use it. Other then those flaw, it is a great lens. I just wish it was lighter. I am thinking about selling this lens and plan to get the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 which is a little bit smaller and lighter. I hope it is just as good.

10-27-2007, 06:32 AM	#9
Mikhail Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: York Region, ON Posts: 277	"Anyway, people are recommending Tamron 28-75 f2.8, apparently better lens." Ditto! Although I think maybe the range is wrong for the OP. The 17-50mm F2.8 would probably suit you best... if they made it in a K-mount! Thanks

10-27-2007, 11:01 AM	#10
TFTM Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 36 Original Poster	Thanks for the comments so far guys. A number of you have deduced the reason I am considering the Sigma is because of the constant f2.8 aperture. I am trying to establish myself as a wedding photographer and I think this would be an ideal lens. My reasoning for this is that I shot a wedding not too long ago with 24mm Nikon and it was sufficiently wide for me, even for group shots. The Tamron I think is too long on the wide end and the DA* is too hit or miss to consider right now. So it seems down to between Sigma and Tamron. I would like to ask for users of either lens to post some pictures so perhaps there can be a consensus as to which is the better lens IQ wise. Perhaps there can be some discussion regarding 24mm (36mm) vs 28mm (42mm). In the past I used to use P&S film cameras that were fixed at 36 and 38 and it didn't bother me. But for some reason 42mm does. Maybe I'm losing my marbles. Perhaps some discussion can clear that up,,,,

10-27-2007, 03:17 PM	#11
-spam- Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 354	[QUOTE=AndrewG NY;110885I would suggest looking at the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 as well. It isn't nearly as bulky as the 24-70 (uses 77mm filters, the same as a complementary DA 12-24), and on D-SLR I think you're less likely to miss the 10mm (between 60-70mm) difference in reach.[/QUOTE] Most definitely. Ive got one and it compliments my 10-20 quite well and being able to share filters between the two is a big bonus. Its much smaller and lighter than the 24-70. The AF is certainly not too bad and it performs better than a lot of lenses ive used. Its also not too bad wide open at all focal lengths (in my eyes, i dont pixel peep so i cant say for sure)

10-27-2007, 04:35 PM	#12
offertonhatter Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: North West UK Posts: 390	I've got the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 and although huge (I call it the Mini-Bigma :-) ) it is an excellent lens. Sure it is a little soft at the edges wide open, but I dont mind that due to the way I use it. However from F8 to F16 it is pin sharp. Finally although it is big, I find it a joy to hold especially as it is nicely balanced with my K10D and Battery Grip. Worth looking at. Now to get hold of an ultra wide :-)