Advice - Sigma 17-50 F2.8

Does anyone out there own and regularly use the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 lens? If so, what is your assessment of it in terms of its optical quality?

Sharpness, colour rendering (particularly interested in this) and contrast? CA? Other aberrations?

I need a high quality zoom in the range that the Siggy offers, but I'm put off by the price of the Pentax DA*16-50 and also the poor reliability of the motors on this lens. The DA*50-135 and DA*300 have blown me away, but the DA*16-50 for some reason doesn't have the same appeal to me. Will a Sigma 16-50 give me similar or better IQ than the Pentax would?

I'm not particularly interested in the Tamron, despite it getting decent reviews.

Regards
David

Try the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-f4 It is one of their newest lenses. I bought one yesterday. Look it up. CHEERS Vic.

I've been trying the Sigma 17-50 2.8 against it's sister 24-70 so far I think the 24-70 is better, but it may not be the range you'r looking for.

I've sent you a PM.

I have an old version being the Sigma DC 18-50 F2.8 EX which I bought new in June 2006.

I wanted a fast equivalent of the kit lens to take out on early morning cycle rides and this seemed to fit the bill. All the early reviews suggested that it was a great lens but I started seeing considerable CA issues in my results.

I think there are not very many detailed reviews of the Pentax version of this lens but a slightly later photozone review of the Canon version did have reservations about the CA.

Perhaps the later versions of this lens have addressed the CA issue but I think it would be worth investigation before purchasing one.

I still have this lens but have not used it for a long while. I am reluctant to sell it on with such a nasty CA characteristic so it sits on a shelf collecting dust. I will probably end up giving it to a charity shop!

I went down the DA*16-50 route, as a very early adopter, which was an uncomfortable journey and I am on my 3rd of these which after replacement of the focus motor, in 2010, now seems fine.

In the middle of this when I was getting really fed up with the DA*16-50 reliability issues I bought a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 HSM OS. This lens works very well although of course it is only f2.8 at the wide end. I still use this lens often preferring it to the DA*16-50 when going out on my bike. When using this lens I have to remember to make a decision over whether to use the camera or lens shake reduction and still sometimes forget to turn the camera SR back on when I go back to my other lenses .

Hope this helps.

Glyn

i thought the 16-50 SDM problems were sorted after 2012 as they are fitted with the new DC motor, i had an old model that gave me no problems but let it go in a deal, i now have a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 and to me it does not have punch in colour or the feel of the Pentax lens which, if and when i can afford one, i WILL buy again

The Sigma 24-70 is a beast of a lens but is excellent all round.
Never had the Sigma 17-50 but have had the 17-70 which you (David) now owns.
There is of course the Tamron 17-50 which again is f2.8 and a much underrated lens.

According to DXO the Sigma 17-50 is the sharpest zoom lens ( of those they tested ) on either a K5IIs or a K3. I have just bought one and have not enough experience of it to make a judgement. There is also a comparative review of it against the Pentax 16-50 and the Tamron 17-50 on Pentax Forums.

Thanks for all the replies guys, it is appreciated. Regarding the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 HSM OS, I already own this lens and am wanting to replace it with a 17-70 constant F2.8. The primary reason for wanting to replace it is because I can't get on with the colour rendering on it, as it is so different to the way my other lenses render colours, particularly on greens. Because I do a fair amount of landscape work this is important to me.

Barrie Forbes has kindly offered to send me a few RAW files for images taken with his Sigma 17-50 so that I can have a look at thee I've been told that the 17-50 has much better colour rendering than the 17-70 does. Failing that, I might buy another DA 17-70, but I really want the constant F2.8 and the DA*16-50 is too expensive.

Regards
David

David. The new 17-70 f2.8/4 doesn't have the shake control on it only the hsm motor. This is one of their NEW lenses. I've had it out today at Haddon Hall and will put up a few straight from the camera happy snap jpegs in the next few days. (I'm busy over the week end and Monday) So you can have a look. Unless of course you are desperate and are going to buy sooner?.
CHEERS Vic.

I see the 16-50 and 17-50 are mentioned...

Is the Pentax DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 Limited DC WR out of the equation?

The focal range is tighter but with the addition of a small wide prime (15mm) could be pretty good combo

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm looking for a single lens and the focal range on the 20-40 is not enough, so a 17-50 or 16-50 is the minimum I can live with. I also have a 12-24, so I don't need anything at the ultra wide end.

Regards
David

David it seems to look like the *16-50 would be the best choice if you could find a recent one at a good price - you do seem to enjoy your other star lens.I quite fancy one but they are big and heavy (to me anyway).

Hi David

Did you get hold of some raw files from the Sigma 17-50? I recently bought this lens and love it so if you would like me to send you some alternative raw files taken on a K3 then I'd be very happy to do so.

If you were a little closer to warwickshire, or heading down this way at any point you'd be quite welcome to borrow it an have a play.

Cheers

Andy

Thanks to you all once again for your kind assistance.

Cheers Andy, but I met up with Barrie Forbes today at RSPB Old Moor and had the chance to try out his lens. This prompted me to have another go at solving the colour issues on my Sigma 17-70, and hey presto I have the answer. The lens came from AndrewA with a B+W skylight filter attached and I had forgotten this was on the lens. It turns out this is the cause of the problems and after removing it all of the out of kilter colours disappeared completely. Images are sharper too!

Now that I have this sorted I will be keeping the lens.

Best wishes
David