Pentax 10-17mm Vs Sigma 8-16mm


MattyH

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 11:44
Hi,
Can anyone tell me apart from the slight difference in focal lengths why the Sigma lens seems to be more expensive on the second hand market,
I thought it may come down to IQ but on checking a number of photos taken with both lenses I cannot see any difference between them,
I have noticed that the value of Pentax branded lenses has fallen quite abit from the same time last year even the limited lenses are now not out of reach.

MattMatic

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 11:58

The Pentax 10-17 is a fisheye, while the Sigma 8-16 is rectilinear.

Completely different fields of view
(The Pentax @ 10mm is 180 degrees, while the Sigma @ 8mm is 114 degrees)

You're comparing apples and oranges
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
Last Edited by MattMatic on 18/09/2012 - 11:58

AxelLuther

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 12:18
I had both - first the 10-17 and I gave it back and got the Sigma 8-16.
The Pentax Lense was not OK - the components were losely mounted and I was afraid that in the near future, the whole thing would fall in pieces. However - I don't think at all, that this is typical Pentax building quality - all ym three other Pentax lenses have very good building quality.
It was more the limited usage of the fisheye that convinced me to go to a rectilinear. I really love the fish eye effect (actually I just bought a GoPro HD HEro2 for diving movies) but if you use it too often, it becomes boring. As I had no budget to get both, I decided to go for the Sigma.
I also have to say, that the range between 8 and 10mm on the Sigma ios far more than you would expect. If UW is something you are looking for, you will appreciate these 2mm.
The Sigma has one often mentioned disadvantage - the front lense is almost like a bowl - sticking out of the lens body when you remove the protection cap. This prevents any filter usage and it is also always a bit scary to have it mounted and handle the camera with the lense, where the front lense is the element that sticks out mos.....
It is also big and heavy - so not ideal for traveling - although - from a picture perspective it is ideal for traveling. Indoor shots of big churches, architecture shots, landscapes - all these scenes are very attractive for the lense - so actually I use it very often now (and I also found out, that it is much easier to add an fisheye effect during postprocessing, when you really want one, compared to correcting a fisheye photo - which is more or less impossible).
_____________________________________________

Colors are the lack of darkness

You find more of my pictures here: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/axelluther or on my web page: www.axel-luther.com

greynolds999

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 12:29
I had a 10-17 and a 12-24 (both of which had an excellent build quality) and they are totally different lenses for different purposes.

I wouldn't be without a fisheye lens or an ultrawide so you really need both!

You really should compare the 8-16 with the Pentax 12-24.
My Photobucket

MattyH

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 12:34
greynolds999 wrote:
I had a 10-17 and a 12-24 (both of which had an excellent build quality) and they are totally different lenses for different purposes.

I wouldn't be without a fisheye lens or an ultrawide so you really need both!

You really should compare the 8-16 with the Pentax 12-24.

I would love the Pentax 12-24mm as I have had a chance to play with one,but it is well over my budget!

What I am looking for is adding something new to my photography,as I am not into all that post processing I am more of a pre processing guy,,

MattyH

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 12:41
And where are all the new Pentax lenses that make us want to stay with the brand.......
I have just invested in a K5,as everyone seems to be selling to fund their new mark ll's but when it comes to new lenses they charge over 200 for a 50mmf1.7 where the canon version is less then half the price,

And before anyone states that their are hundreds of old manual lenses for next to nothing, I need AF as my eyesight is not upto much at the moment........

cabstar

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 17:37
Can you still buy a new 50mm f/1.7?

Do you mean the new 1.8 or the older 1.4?

The new 1.8 is going to cost more due to be being new, compare e price of the 1.4 against canon or nikons, you maybe surprised!

The only shortage in the Pentax line up is fast glass over 300m
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

MattyH

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 18:34
cabstar wrote:
Can you still buy a new 50mm f/1.7?

Do you mean the new 1.8 or the older 1.4?

The new 1.8 is going to cost more due to be being new, compare e price of the 1.4 against canon or nikons, you maybe surprised!

The only shortage in the Pentax line up is fast glass over 300m

Yes sorry 1.8 i meant.....but i still think the Pentax lien up of lenses is lacking compared to other brands or us it just me....

johnriley

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 19:10
There are, I think, less Pentax lenses than Nikon or Canon, but more than Sony or Olympus.

In practical terms, the lenses we are likely to be able to buy are well catered for. For very long lenses, apart from the new 560mm, we might have to turn to Sigma and maybe Tamron, but likely we would anyway given the costs involved.

I'm curious as to what lens you really want to buy that isn't available?
Best regards, John

MattyH

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 22:54
johnriley wrote:
There are, I think, less Pentax lenses than Nikon or Canon, but more than Sony or Olympus.

In practical terms, the lenses we are likely to be able to buy are well catered for. For very long lenses, apart from the new 560mm, we might have to turn to Sigma and maybe Tamron, but likely we would anyway given the costs involved.

I'm curious as to what lens you really want to buy that isn't available?

I am just after normal focal length lenses at normal prices,the limited lenses are all well and good for the privileged few who can afford them,but what about a nice 24mm f2.8 or 28mm f2.8 and as for 35mm,two are expensive and the third is a couple of stops to slow with a very cheap build quality,
What the range in my mind is lacking is some middle ground in price,speed and quality,if Pentax/Ricoh are serious about building the brand and attracting new buyers then this is what is missing,at the moment there is nothing to attract somebody to change brands,
If you look in the past this is what Pentax was good at,good quality optics and cameras for the masses,and in this day and age when money is tighter then ever for most people,photography as a hobby needs to be affordable again for the masses.

DaveHolmes

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 23:52
MattyH wrote:

I am just after normal focal length lenses at normal prices,the limited lenses are all well and good for the privileged few who can afford them,but what about a nice 24mm f2.8 or 28mm f2.8 and as for 35mm,two are expensive and the third is a couple of stops to slow with a very cheap build quality,

35mm is the 'normal' focal length for apsc. As for the DA35-2.4 lens being slow, my view is that Pentax make up for this by bringing out cameras that perform better at higher ISOs than much of the competition (at least until very recently)... Besides which I don't think 2.4 is that slow... (sure many will argue against)

Build quality on the plastic lenses is by all account very good... They're just made of plastic...
The DA35-2.4 is pretty much 'exactly' the middle ground of price, speed and quality!

An F or FA 28 can be found used for less than 200 - I have the FA and like it - the F is apparently better... But 28 isn't anywhere near a 'normal' focal length on apsc, so probably why they don't re-release it in DA form...

A 24mm would be nice but I'd prefer a plastic 19mm f4 myself...
........................................................................
Digital:
Pentax K5- Vivitar 19mm 3.8; FA35mm f2; D-Xenon 100mm macro f2.8; DA50-200mm WR...
Flash:
Yongnuo YN-560; Vivitar 285HV; Cactus V4 triggers...
Film:
Pentax-MX & M50mm f1.4; Spottie & 55mm f1.8; MG & M40mm 2.8...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveholmesphotos/

johnriley

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 23:56
Not sure photography is ever going to be cheap. Can't agree the 35mm f2.4 is "cheap build quality" - I would say it was beautifully made, albeit using plastics. Good quality plastics and terrfic results.

The 21mm is the nearest to what you are looking for and true maybe the 31mm, but more likely the 35mm macro or aforementioned 35mm f2.4, other marques aren't cheap either, certainly not for their quality ranges.

If we want cheap lenses I'm afraid we may have to look at cheaper product standards. I don't really want Pentax to go for cheaper standards - at the moment the quality is escellent so why spoil it?
Best regards, John

MattyH

Link Posted 19/09/2012 - 00:35
johnriley wrote:
Not sure photography is ever going to be cheap. Can't agree the 35mm f2.4 is "cheap build quality" - I would say it was beautifully made, albeit using plastics. Good quality plastics and terrfic results.

The 21mm is the nearest to what you are looking for and true maybe the 31mm, but more likely the 35mm macro or aforementioned 35mm f2.4, other marques aren't cheap either, certainly not for their quality ranges.

If we want cheap lenses I'm afraid we may have to look at cheaper product standards. I don't really want Pentax to go for cheaper standards - at they'd moment the quality is escellent so why spoil it?

Yes the 21mm is the lens for me,but the cost is just daft,yes I know you have to pay for quality,but I just think Pentax is missing a trick on potential sales, as this is the time for the brand to grow and reach out to people new to the hobby,

Pentax needs something to turn people's heads away from Nikon and Canon, just like the K1000 did many years ago,

In this day and age you don't need to forfit quality for cost, if Pentax had some middle ground I bet sales would improve,profits would then improve and so on, and the profits re-invested etc etc.

Don't get me wrong I am all for the limited lenses with their superb build and glass, but be honest these lenses are only for a certain few and a lottery win for the rest of us,these are lenses to aspire to, but in the mean time while we are saving and buying more lottery tickets we other mere mortals would like something we can use and enjoy now.

Smeggypants

Link Posted 19/09/2012 - 07:20
AxelLuther wrote:
I had both - first the 10-17 and I gave it back and got the Sigma 8-16.
The Pentax Lense was not OK - the components were losely mounted and I was afraid that in the near future, the whole thing would fall in pieces. However - I don't think at all, that this is typical Pentax building quality - all ym three other Pentax lenses have very good building quality.
.

Makes sense. My 10-17 is very well built. there's nothing loose on it.

I agree that constant use of a fisheye can be more boring that constant use of any lens becuase the effect is more noticeable, but the good thing about the 10-17 is that you can zoom it out to 17 and have less of that effect with the right composition.

As has been said comparing the 10-17 to the 8-16 is really apples and oranges. I don't don't have an 8-16. My widest non fisheye is my DA14 prime.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Smeggypants

Link Posted 19/09/2012 - 07:22
johnriley wrote:
There are, I think, less Pentax lenses than Nikon or Canon, but more than Sony or Olympus.

In practical terms, the lenses we are likely to be able to buy are well catered for. For very long lenses, apart from the new 560mm, we might have to turn to Sigma and maybe Tamron, but likely we would anyway given the costs involved.

I'm curious as to what lens you really want to buy that isn't available?

A Pentax DA* 30mm f1.2 or even better a f1.0 ( although I doubt I could afford an f1.0 version )
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.