Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 1, 2011, 1:13 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 15
Default General opinions of list of lenses for K-5

I am still going back and forth about purchasing a K-5 body and am considering the following lenses. If anyone has any comments/opinions/substitution recommendations about the entire list or individual lenses I would appreciate your responses.

Sigma 8-16 / 4.5- 5.6
Sigma 24 - 70 /2.8
Sigma 50-500 /4.5-6.3
mfgriggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 1, 2011, 2:22 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Frogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 2,774
Default

The first question has got to be : what are you going to be shooting ? Because you have what are basically a special ist / unusual landscape lense, a portrait lense and a birding lense.

The Sigma 24-70/2.8 is not highly rated the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a much higher rated lense.
__________________
http://frogfish.smugmug.com
Pentax : 15 Ltd, 77 Ltd, 43/1.9 Ltd, Cosina 55/1.2, DA*300/4, Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8, Raynox 150/250, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.

Nikon : D800, D600, Sigma 500/4.5, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 35/2.0, Nikkor 85/1.8G, Sigma 50/1.4. Nikon x1.4 TC, Sigma x2.0 TC
Frogfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2011, 8:17 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: East Central Vermont
Posts: 1,890
Default

I was going to say the same thing as Frogfish. Without knowing what sort of photography you plan to do, no one can make a well reasoned recommendation.
mtnman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2011, 10:43 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

I don't have any of those lenses, or personal experience with them. The 50-500 seems to be very well liked by it's owners. It's a big, heavy lens and when I tried one at a photo show once (mounted on a Canon, not a Pentax) I knew I'd only be able to use it on a tripod or possibly a monopod. Handholding it for me was out, but then bigdawg routinely uses it that way and gets quite good results, so it depends on the person using it.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2011, 4:49 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

As everyone else has asked - what are you going to shoot? Two of the three lens are specialty lenses, at opposite ends of the spectrum. The Sigma 8-16 is the widest lens available that is rectilinear or normal and not fisheye. Its top end - 16 is where most other lenses bottom out. The Sigma 50-500 is usually referred to as the Big Ma. Neither of these lenses are inexpensive, either. Here is some information that I knew about on these - especially the second link on the 8-16....
I do not have any of these. The 8-16 was just released within the last year, and after I had already picked up my 12-24 much earlier, so I never considered it. I am not a birder so I have not been bitten by the bug for the Big Ma - but Big Dawg has one and has posted a lot of images from his.

interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2011, 9:31 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 15
Default

Thanks to everyone that has responded to my post. I have a wide range of needs from my lenses. I takes lots studio portraits and also shoot for a local newspaper. I was hoping to get opinions on how these particular lenses compared to lenses that others may have chosen to buy instead. I would also like to know from people that bought them why they chose them. Frogfish...thanks for the info on the Tamron...I will check it out.
mfgriggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2011, 11:40 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: East Central Vermont
Posts: 1,890
Default

I have no experience with any of the three lenses you mentioned. But I have read that the Sigma 150-500 is slightly sharper than the 50-500, which makes sense, since it has a reduced zoom range. If you don't need the bottom end of the Bigma's range (50-150 mm), the 150-500 might be worth considering. I believe both are very hefty lenses, and therefore would pose a challenge for hand-holding. But as Mtngal pointed out, people do shoot those lenses hand-held, and we have seen some fine samples on this forum.

As I said, I have no personal experience with any of the lenses, so take that for what it's worth (admittedly, not much).

Last edited by mtnman; Mar 7, 2011 at 11:42 PM.
mtnman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2011, 2:04 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Frogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 2,774
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfgriggs View Post
Thanks to everyone that has responded to my post. I have a wide range of needs from my lenses. I takes lots studio portraits and also shoot for a local newspaper. I was hoping to get opinions on how these particular lenses compared to lenses that others may have chosen to buy instead. I would also like to know from people that bought them why they chose them. Frogfish...thanks for the info on the Tamron...I will check it out.
From your comments it would seem you really don't need the weight of the big Sigmas, they really are for birding, wildlife etc.

I would probably say the same about the 8-16. This is really a specialist / unusual lense and not a day-to-day go to lense.

As mentioned the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a great portrait lense and also good for your reporting. The other lenses I'd recommend would be either the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or the new Sigma 17-50/2.8 - the Tamron is my go to lense. Pentax offer the 16-50 but it is much more expensive (than the Tamron) and most of the SDM problems have been with this lense or their 50-135 (possibly because they are popular lenses).

Another consideration but at a slightly higher price point would be the Sigma 50-150/2.8 - great sharpness and flexibility, and considerably cheaper than Pentax's offering the 50-135/2.8 and also focuses much faster having HSM instead of SDM (both being virtually silent).

One of the 17-50s and either the 28-75 or 50-150 would set you up very nicely indeed !

I would check out the Tamron's performance on this thread (lots of shots from both the 17-50 and 28-75):-

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/l...ammy-club.html
__________________
http://frogfish.smugmug.com
Pentax : 15 Ltd, 77 Ltd, 43/1.9 Ltd, Cosina 55/1.2, DA*300/4, Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8, Raynox 150/250, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.

Nikon : D800, D600, Sigma 500/4.5, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 35/2.0, Nikkor 85/1.8G, Sigma 50/1.4. Nikon x1.4 TC, Sigma x2.0 TC

Last edited by Frogfish; Mar 8, 2011 at 3:48 AM.
Frogfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2011, 3:36 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

The main reason to choose the Pentax 16-50 over either the Sigma 15-50 f2.8 or the Tamron is the weather sealing. From the sample photos I've seen, the Sigma and Tamron are excellent and possibly better, depending on the individual copy you get. On the other hand, I think that the recent Pentax DA* lenses have been far less prone to failure, and that the failure rate seems to be connected to how little you use the lens. I have one of the first DA*50-135 lenses sold in Southern California (preordered from a local store). It's definitely my work-horse lens, used often (at least once a month) and I've never had a problem with the SDM. I will most likely get the DA*16-50 just because of the weather sealing (maybe by the the end of the year? Not sure of timing, too many other things hitting my budget and the 16-50 is second on my priority list, behind an LBA lens that I don't really need, but want SO much!). I've read something recently that said one of the third party lens manufacturers (want to say Sigma but don't really remember) may be putting out a lens with seals. If that happens before I buy the 16-50, I may end up with it instead of the Pentax.

I also hefted the 150-500 and thought that might be within my capability to hand-hold for very short times - it's not as heavy and large as the 50-500.

As far as wide-angle, there's only a few times when I wanted something wider than 12mm (I have the DA 12-24). Lots of people have the Sigma 10-20 and I well might have purchased that lens instead of the 12-24 if I had known about it. On the other hand, the 12-24 is smaller so I'd probably still buy it over the 10-20. I don't know much about the 8-16.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2011, 8:40 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Frogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 2,774
Default

Harriet - I was intrigued by your comment that the 12-24 is smaller than the 10-20, I had always assumed it was larger for some reason or other. Maybe because the 10-20 isn't a large lense anyway !

Interesting they are the same length (83.5mm) and almost the same width but the Sigma (81mm) shades it by just 6.5mm over the Pentax (87.5mm). The Pentax is lighter though 430g (15.2oz) vs 470g (16.4oz) but just 1.2oz difference, so it's virtually a tie all round !
__________________
http://frogfish.smugmug.com
Pentax : 15 Ltd, 77 Ltd, 43/1.9 Ltd, Cosina 55/1.2, DA*300/4, Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8, Raynox 150/250, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.

Nikon : D800, D600, Sigma 500/4.5, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 35/2.0, Nikkor 85/1.8G, Sigma 50/1.4. Nikon x1.4 TC, Sigma x2.0 TC

Last edited by Frogfish; Mar 9, 2011 at 8:42 AM.
Frogfish is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:01 AM.