Sigma superzooms

I have a friend who's considering migrating from Canon land to the K-5, and the question arises as to what lenses to get with it.

She'd probably get one general purpose zoom, and a few second hand primes initially.

Specifically, what are the Sigma 18-125 and 18-250 like in terms of sharpness and handling?

Ideally, if you could compare them with the Pentax 18-135 and Pentax 18-250, it would be very helpful indeed, since I have some experience with these.

It strikes me that a WR lens will be an enormous advantage and increase the possibilities. I was at Whitby on Sunday and the camera and 18-135mm lens were saturated. They were much happier than I was.

The 18-55mm and 18-135mm WR lenses are both an excellent introduction and the price of either as a kit is better than buying a separate lens.

The Pentax 18-250mm is also excellent, but no WR and no QuickShift.

Yes, I know about all of those, thanks.

The 18-55 isn't really long enough, and as you may remember, I was far from impressed with the edge qualities of the 18-135.

That's why I was hoping to get an idea of what the Sigmas were like. If the Pentax 18-250 was still available, I'd be recommending that for sure.

I have zero experience with Sigma super zooms, and I know I am not answering your question, but have you considered this new Sigma 18-200mm?

http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/new-sigma-18-200mm-for-pentax.html

Bjørn

Thanks for that, I hadn't noticed that one.

It says the in lens OS doesn't work - but why not? It works with the 150-500.

Sigma no longer include OS in their lenses for Pentax and Sony because we have it in the body. Total con if you ask me as it's nice to see a stable image in the viewfinder and they don't reduce the price any because of it.

Yes, I'd agree.

With the Bigma, I'm forming the distinct impression that the OS in the lens is quite a bit more effective than the SR in the body.

Must admit I don't find any real difference between my old non OS 50-500mm on the K-5 and new OS version on my 50D, both lenses are excellent. I do prefer the finish and the stable image through the viewfinder with the new one though.

In the lens SR is old leftover technology from the film days. Extensive tests have been carried out by the testing labs and neither system shows any benefit. I think a lot of testing has also been done on the US Forum.

In lens SR will certainly never TEACH any one how to hold a lens steady

I have only one Sigma OS lens, the 150-500mm DG OS HSM. Seeing a stable image in the viewfinder is highly beneficial to me because as hard as I try, I can't keep long lenses still when hand held, even though I know how to.

I am even considering replacing some of my Pentax lenses with Sigma equivalents whilst OS is still available from Sigma in Pentax fit.

There are those that use really long telephoto lenses that say lens stabilisation helps when metering as the image presented to the camera metering is stable as against in camera stabilisation whereby any movement across the metering points due to not having a stable image causes changes in the metering.

For short reach glass there seems to be no difference. Minolta developed the system as it was cheaper than re-engineering their lenses.

I like the term old technology though as we can apply that to our M42, K, M and A series lenses since they are also left over from the film days which odly enough never ceased as there are those on this forum that still use film.

Best regards

Not familiar with Sigma superzooms, but my 135-400 is fantastic quality

I'm beginning to think that. The focusing seems a bit "snappier" as well.