| Author: | | New Member Registered: June, 2017 Posts: 15 | | Review Date: January 6, 2023 | Recommended | Price: $20.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Inexpensive, lightweight, good on crop sensors | | Cons: | as with all zooms - contrast drops in far 33% | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: APS
Autofocus: 8
New Or Used: Used
| |
I have the UCii AF version - this lens is like all the zooms I have ever tested; the long third is always low contrast and less sharp. However in the 28-85mm range this lens is pretty good. It focuses fast on my bodies, handling on AF is good (but bad on manual focus), colour is fine and contrast good in the shorter 2/3 of the range (especially if you keep the lens hood on and the sun out of field.
The crop sensor crops out the usual troubles at the wide angle end - so vignetting is not intrusive.
As with all older zooms - there seems to be great variation. I find this is usually down to haze on the lens elements which zooms are more prone to get (they have more helicoids and mechanics with oil and grease applied to vaporise).
My conclusion - if you have an old copy that is clean and free of haze or can find one cheaply, this can be a good everyday AF lens as you search and save for more prime lenses for your system - this is how I use my copy. For 7x5 and 10x8 prints and HDTV screen viewing - this lens is fine. As with all zooms - pixel peeping will reveal "faults" that matter little in practice!
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: October, 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 311 | | Review Date: May 18, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Inexpensive, reasonably sharp | | Cons: | Average AF | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 4
Handling: 4
Value: 8
| |
My copy is a seemingly good copy, far better than the two reviews above. It's surprisingly sharp throughout out the range, certainly better than that 28-80mm Mark II macro I have. CA is actually very good when put in the budget lens context. budget reasonably good too. I would pit this as even against my DA 18-55mm in terms if image quality and although it's not as wide, it's got good reach at the long end, again compared to the 18-55mm.
AF is a slow in poor light, but few lenses are great like that!
Overall, I good lens for the price.
| | | | | Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus Registered: May, 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Posts: 10,643 | | Review Date: March 12, 2011 | Not Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 2 |
| Pros: | None | | Cons: | Very poor AF | |
I got this lens in a multi part Ebay buy and paid next to nothing for it fortunately. There's noting good to write about it as Charles above states. Contrast is poor and focus is soft at all apertures and focal lengths.
If you get one free, fine. Do what I did and take it apart to learn how an AF lens works. That's about the most fun I had with mine.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2010 Location: Durham, nc Posts: 958 | | Review Date: January 26, 2011 | Not Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 2 |
| Pros: | 28mm-105mm is a much more useful zoom range for walking around than the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my K-x. | | Cons: | Not sharp at all, slow, lack of contrast, heavy, focus ring has very short throw, won't focus close, and so much more. | | Sharpness: 1
Aberrations: 4
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 3
| |
A friend bought me the Sigma lens many years ago when I was sporting a K1000. He figured it was a good carry-around zoom, and if I upgraded later I'd have autofocus. So it was a nice gift... but on the K1000, in full manual mode, the very very short throw of the focus ring made it quite difficult to dial in focus correctly. So I sat on the lens until just recently, when I acquired my K-x.
Now I've had a chance to compare the Sigma against the kit lens, and I must say, there's no comparison. The kit (18-55mm) lens beats the Sigma hands down. The sigma has a lot of problems, but the unforgivable one is sharpness. It has none. At all. The next worst would be the complete lack of contrast, and the the following would be the flat boring colors. That, and the Sigma is heavy, slower, and the minimum focus distance is around 12 inches (the kit lens is around 4).
Now granted, I haven't run a full gamut of tests. Basically I set my K-x to aperture priority, set the lens wide open, and took some shots. I've included crops of a couple test shots taken the other day. The red ball is 18mm for the pentax and 28mm for the sigma. The tiki torch is f5.6 (wide open for both lenses), zoomed in about half way. (again, not scientific, just real-world use)
I really think the pics speak for themselves here.
Pentax 18-55mm lens:
Sigma UC-II lens:
Pentax 18-55mm lens:
Sigma UC-II lens:
Note: Another bad thing about this lens: It does not autofocus with a Pentax SF10 film body.
Charles
| | | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: April, 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Posts: 17,295 | | Review Date: December 13, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $46.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Nice focal range | | Cons: | slow | |
I bought this lens to try and get a walk about zoom with more reach than a typical kit zoom. The lens is surprising sharp and it renders colors well. Sharpness drops a little at the long end; the photo of the Blue Heron was taken at 105mm and is cropped to actual pixels. The sharpness was good wide open, but wide open is only F4. Contrast is a little weak but easily fixable in post production. Autofocus is relatively fast and accurate, it struggles in low light, but then it’s not a fast lens to start with. In manual focus the throw is only about a quarter turn. This lens is about the same size as a Sigma 28-80 or an average kit type lens; it is lightweight and has the typical 80s-90s plastic build (although with a metal mount).
When using this lens I have found no instances of vignetting. The lens does show moderate distortion at wider angles, although this is more evident on film than it is with digital. The distortion is hard to notice unless there are buildings or other geometric designs in the photo. When using this lens I didn’t notice any other aberrations. But I must admit that I did not put it through any rigorous testing, just normal use. This lens has a smooth and pleasant bokeh. The lens is a little slow, which limits its use as the sun goes down. It's too slow to use without flash in most indoor situations. Overall, it’s a good lightweight inexpensive walk about lens for daylight, a nice focal range in film and for digital. I have sold my copy of the lens because it was just too slow for my needs, and I prefer not to use flash. Possibly if had been a little wider I may have kept it despite the lack of speed.
Here's a couple of samples with a K20D:
 | | |
