On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:44 PM, paul stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Nov 23, 2010, at 9:26 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Tanya Love <tanyal...@bigpond.com> wrote: >>> So I really am needing a good wide angle zoom. I've been procrastinating on >>> it for ages and "making do" with my 18-55mm kit lens, but it's not fast >>> enough, and optically, could be better too. Sooo, would love to hear your >>> words of wisdom in regards to comparing these: >>> >>> 1. Sigma Lens 20-40mm f/2.8 EX DG ASP - about $400 >>> 2. PENTAX-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL[IF]SDM - about $1400 >>> 3. Pentax Lens 12-24mm f/4 ED AL IF DA - about $1269 >>> 4. Sigma Lens 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM - about $927 >>> >>> Obviously the 20-40 would be a whole lot less in terms of $$ and you usually >>> get what you pay for, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone >>> has any experience with it? >>> I'm fairly certain that I am set on #2, but interested to here all of your >>> feedback first... >>> >>> Tan.x. >>> >> >> The 20-40 isn't wide at all, I'd skip it (it's intended for a >> Full-frame camera) and the 16-50's a general purpose zoom. >> >> This is one case where I'd unabashedly recommend the Sigma. The 10-20 >> f3.5 is simply a better lens than Pentax's good but not exceptional >> 12-24 and the Sigma's cheaper as well. > > Have you actually tried both? I did a quick and dirty test of the Sigma and > found it seriously lacking. LIke most Sigma's it's build quality leaves a lot > to be desired. The Pentax 12-24, on the other hand, is an excellent lens. > > Paul >
I've tried both versions of the Sigma (the older f4-5.6 version which I owned in Nikon mount and the new f3.5 version which will probably be the only APS-C lens to be added to my current Sony/Minolta kit), the Tokina and the Pentax version of the 12-24 (same optics). The build quality on the Pentax is no better than the Sigma, although it does feel better at first glance (the Sigma EX lenses are very well built but feel kinda plasticky when new. It's due to a rubberized coating on the barrel). The optics in both the Pentax and Tokina 12-24's were inferior to the older Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, mostly at the edge at wide apertures. The current 10-20 f3.5 (which is optically better than the older f4-5.6 version) is simply the best UW zoom for APS-C cameras on the market after the Tokina 11-16 (which isn't available in K mount) Frankly, I wouldn't consider the Pentax unless there was a cost savings for it over the Sigma, it's certainly not worth any premium. It's a good lens but not worth more than half of what it costs new outside the US, pricing is MUCH better at B&H, it's a $50 difference rather than a 50% difference like it is here in Canada. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
