Have Sigma 17-70, worth adding Pentax 16-45 ?
6,213 posts
Link
Posted 29/07/2008 - 23:06
nothing wrong with redundancy. What if you drop one? or your better half want's one at the same time?
you may find one more usefull than the other for some shots, and may well be able to post a "Shoot-out" test for us!
I find the 16-45 gets straight lines straight, and focusses real close, and really doesn't fall off at the corners to any noticable degree...
I don't have the sigma, but tried one out at a camera store (used older model), it seemed loud, hunted a fair bit, and lots of purple fringing on high contrast edges. (caveat emptor... I've incorrectly used pf in the past as a blanket phrase for several different types of chromatic abberations... I don't care what specifically it is, the sigma appeared worse than the pentax when shooting tree branches through a window, at the store on that particular day... so I bought a Pentax... ok?)
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
you may find one more usefull than the other for some shots, and may well be able to post a "Shoot-out" test for us!
I find the 16-45 gets straight lines straight, and focusses real close, and really doesn't fall off at the corners to any noticable degree...
I don't have the sigma, but tried one out at a camera store (used older model), it seemed loud, hunted a fair bit, and lots of purple fringing on high contrast edges. (caveat emptor... I've incorrectly used pf in the past as a blanket phrase for several different types of chromatic abberations... I don't care what specifically it is, the sigma appeared worse than the pentax when shooting tree branches through a window, at the store on that particular day... so I bought a Pentax... ok?)
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Last Edited by Don on 29/07/2008 - 23:08
Link
Posted 29/07/2008 - 23:33
Just because you mentionned it. If you have to upgrade from anything better than a 18-55, in my opinion you have to go for the DA* 16-50mm.
I just bought it, and I am stunned every time I look at a photo I've taken. Completely superior to any other zoom I have ever tried (and i am no exaggerating) and probably comparable to a good prime lens on many apertures. And the issues about quality have been solved long ago, not to mention that you would want to buy from a UK store, with warranty, and eventual immediate replacement for any inconvenience. The lens is absolutely amazing.
Hope this helps.
'Between the lights there is always a shadow'
www.nathanservi.com & PPG
I just bought it, and I am stunned every time I look at a photo I've taken. Completely superior to any other zoom I have ever tried (and i am no exaggerating) and probably comparable to a good prime lens on many apertures. And the issues about quality have been solved long ago, not to mention that you would want to buy from a UK store, with warranty, and eventual immediate replacement for any inconvenience. The lens is absolutely amazing.
Hope this helps.
'Between the lights there is always a shadow'
www.nathanservi.com & PPG
Link
Posted 30/07/2008 - 01:30
nathanever82 wrote:
Just because you mentionned it. If you have to upgrade from anything better than a 18-55, in my opinion you have to go for the DA* 16-50mm.
I just bought it, and I am stunned every time I look at a photo I've taken. Completely superior to any other zoom I have ever tried (and i am no exaggerating) and probably comparable to a good prime lens on many apertures.
Just because you mentionned it. If you have to upgrade from anything better than a 18-55, in my opinion you have to go for the DA* 16-50mm.
I just bought it, and I am stunned every time I look at a photo I've taken. Completely superior to any other zoom I have ever tried (and i am no exaggerating) and probably comparable to a good prime lens on many apertures.
And there I was, thinking that I was more or less sorted, lens-wise.
If the QA questions really have been laid to rest, it's the next on my list.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Link
Posted 30/07/2008 - 17:38
Must admit the 16-50 "issues" have deterred me a little. I was originally considering possible replacement of my Sigma with the new Pentax 17-70...initial indications don't sound too outstanding though & considering the small price difference between the 16-50 & Pentax 17-70 the 16-50 probably makes more sense.
Having said all this I am very pleased with the Sigma 17-70 & I'm starting to think that a wider option would make more sense..the
Sigma 10-20 or Pentax 12-24, both of which would give less distortion too around the 14/15mm foacal length
simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Having said all this I am very pleased with the Sigma 17-70 & I'm starting to think that a wider option would make more sense..the
Sigma 10-20 or Pentax 12-24, both of which would give less distortion too around the 14/15mm foacal length
simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
simonkit
Member
Mold, North Wales
I already have the Sigma 17-70 which I find excellent & have been watching the new Pentax 17-70 comments with interest, initial impressions don't seem too exciting... the DA 16-50 isn't much dearer but this seems to have lots of quality issues so deters me too.
The 16-45 lenses are dropping in price now & I wondered if it might be worth owning both the Sigma & the 16-45 ?
simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link