Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Lens - Pentax Fit


Mannesty

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 13:50
I'm considering buying this lens and would appreciate any comments, positive and negative, from anybody having experience of it.

I'm particularly interested in its control of CA and how it performs wide open at the 200mm end.

Thanks.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

walkeja

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 14:33
Back in 1997 I went to Florida and while I was there I thought it would be a good idea to get a lens. I had decided on a 80-200mm 4.7-5.6 zoom by Pentax. I went to a Pentax dealer and he tried to sell me a Sigma equivalent. I put it on to my camera and it was awful, grit in the works, which he claimed was normal. I asked for the Pentax one and he was surprised by how smooth it was in comparison.

The moral of this story is, you get what you pay for!
Pentax K1-ii and MZ6
Pentax Lenses 28-80 F, 300 DA*, 80-200 F, 35 F2.4 AL, M50 F1.7, 28-105 DFA, 20 F4 SMC
ONE UNITED Member

Mike-P

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 14:43
walkeja wrote:

The moral of this story is, you get what you pay for!

You are comparing 2 cheap zooms.

The moral of THIS story is to check your prices before commenting.

The new OS Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 is just under a grand and Pentax have nothing to touch it anyway because they don't make a lens of this length and speed.
. My Flickr

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 14:47
Mike-P wrote:
The moral of THIS story is to check your prices before commenting.

That was putting it very politely Mike
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

cabstar

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 14:57
Also a lens built in 1997 will be of a totally different quality to a lens built in 2012...
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

LennyBloke

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 15:04
Quote:
Also a lens built in 1997 will be of a totally different quality to a lens built in 2012...

....I think my FA* 80-200 f2.8 would probably argue with that
LennyBloke

walkeja

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 15:13
Mike-P wrote:
walkeja wrote:

The moral of this story is, you get what you pay for!

You are comparing 2 cheap zooms.

The moral of THIS story is to check your prices before commenting.

The new OS Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 is just under a grand and Pentax have nothing to touch it anyway because they don't make a lens of this length and speed.

I did not consider that the Pentax lens was cheap in 1997!

Depends on your budget, but it put me off Sigma lenses, which are cheap!!
Pentax K1-ii and MZ6
Pentax Lenses 28-80 F, 300 DA*, 80-200 F, 35 F2.4 AL, M50 F1.7, 28-105 DFA, 20 F4 SMC
ONE UNITED Member

Mike-P

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 15:28
walkeja wrote:

Depends on your budget, but it put me off Sigma lenses, which are cheap!!

The EX range of Sigma lenses are not cheap by any stretch of the imagination and their quality outweighs the cost in many cases. Tamron and Sigma make a lot of lenses that Pentax seem reluctant to produce and tbh if they weren't around I wonder if Pentax would be either.
. My Flickr

walkeja

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 15:31
Mike-P wrote:
walkeja wrote:

Depends on your budget, but it put me off Sigma lenses, which are cheap!!

The EX range of Sigma lenses are not cheap by any stretch of the imagination and their quality outweighs the cost in many cases. Tamron and Sigma make a lot of lenses that Pentax seem reluctant to produce and tbh if they weren't around I wonder if Pentax would be either.

By cheap I mean in compirison to "named" brands, and by my experienace as shown above I could say they are "cheap and nasty".
Pentax K1-ii and MZ6
Pentax Lenses 28-80 F, 300 DA*, 80-200 F, 35 F2.4 AL, M50 F1.7, 28-105 DFA, 20 F4 SMC
ONE UNITED Member

Mike-P

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 15:32
LennyBloke wrote:
I think my FA* 80-200 f2.8 would probably argue with that

Great lens .. the silver (very easily scratched) finish put me off though.
Pentax produced the DA* 200mm based on the FA so I don't know why they didn't do the same with the 80-200mm.
. My Flickr

Mike-P

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 15:36
walkeja wrote:

By cheap I mean in compirison to "named" brands, and by my experienace as shown above I could say they are "cheap and nasty".

Obviously you need more experience.
. My Flickr

woodworm

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 15:42
walkeja wrote:

Depends on your budget, but it put me off Sigma lenses, which are cheap!!

My Sigma lenses are at least the equal in build quality and IQ of the Pentax equivalents and are quite possibly superior, especially my Sigma 100-300mm.

For these reasons I'm sure the 70-200mm mentioned in the first post would be a fantastic lens even though I don't have any hands on experience with it.
Last Edited by woodworm on 23/05/2012 - 15:45

beakynet

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 15:44
I think they made the DA* 60-250 instead!

I wish Sigma and Tamron would add more of their lens line up to the Pentax mount version!
Bodies: K5IIs, K7, MZ5n, LX, MV
Lenses: DA*16-50, DA18-55WR, DA18-135, DAL35, M50 F2, A50 f1.4, FA50 f1.4, DA*50-135, DA55-300, Tamron 70-300, DFA 100 WR Macro, M135 f3.5, Sigma 120-400 APO DG HSM, Tokina 500 f8.0
Flash: Metz 58, Metz 48
Accessories: BG4, Pentax right angle finder, Pentax mirror adaptor lens, O-ME53 Viewfinder Loupe
Auto 110 System: Auto 110, Winder, 18mm, 24mm, 50mm, 70mm, 20-40mm, AF100P, 1.7x telecon

walkeja

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 15:47
At last a sensible answer instead of just "knockinf" what I said, perhaps I was shown a poor quality lens, I don't know, but the original post did ask for negative views, which I gave.
Pentax K1-ii and MZ6
Pentax Lenses 28-80 F, 300 DA*, 80-200 F, 35 F2.4 AL, M50 F1.7, 28-105 DFA, 20 F4 SMC
ONE UNITED Member

walkeja

Link Posted 23/05/2012 - 15:48
Make that "knocking". I'll get used to this typing lark one day.
Pentax K1-ii and MZ6
Pentax Lenses 28-80 F, 300 DA*, 80-200 F, 35 F2.4 AL, M50 F1.7, 28-105 DFA, 20 F4 SMC
ONE UNITED Member
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.