Previous news story    Next news story

Sigma to launch non-stabilized 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC HSM for Sony and Pentax

By dpreview staff on Dec 2, 2011 at 22:16 GMT

Sigma is launching a non-stabilized version of its 17-50mm F2.8 EX DG HSM for Sony and Pentax. The lens replaces the existing OS versions for these two mounts, for which most cameras have built-in stabilization. The latest version will be available from December 9th. The Japanese recommended selling price remains the same as for the OS version.

Press Release:

SIGMA 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC HSM F/SONY, F/PENTAX

The Sigma Corporation is pleased to announce the new Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC HSM for Sony, and for Pentax.
This large aperture standard zoom lens is designed for digital SLR cameras and covers a focal length from 17mm wide angle. It is a compact lens with an overall length of just 91.8mm (3.6”). This lens offers a large aperture of F2.8 throughout the entire zoom range, making it ideal for many types of photography such as portraiture and landscapes. Two FLD (“F” Low Dispersion) glass elements, which have performance equal to fluorite glass, compensate for color aberration. Two glass mold and one hybrid aspherical lens, provide excellent correction for field curvature and astigmatism.

The Super Multi-Layer Coating reduces flare and ghost. This lens has superior peripheral brightness and provides sharp, high contrast images even at the maximum apertures. High image quality is assured throughout the entire zoom range. Incorporating HSM (Hyper Sonic Motor), the lens provides fast and quiet AF. The lens has a minimum focusing distance of 28cm (11”) throughout the entire zoom range and a maximum magnification ratio of 1:5. The rounded 7 blade diaphragm creates an attractive blur to the out of focus images. The inner focusing system eliminates front lens rotation, making the lens particularly suitable for use with the supplied petal-type lens hood and circular polarizing filters.

17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM for Sony and for Pentax will be discontinued with the launch of this lens.

Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC HSM Specifications:

Lens Construction: 17 Elements in 13 Groups
Angle of View: 79.7-31.7 degrees
Number of blades: 7 pcs (Rounded diaphragm)
Minimum Aperture: F22
Minimum Focusing Distance: 28cm (11")
Maximum Magnification: 1:5.0
Dimensions: Diameter 83.5mm (3.3") × Length 91.8mm (3.6")
Weight: 550g (20.3oz.)

Comments

Total comments: 97
12
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (Dec 8, 2011)

And if it works as well as many (not all) Sigma lenses the focus will be IFFY. Check out carefully before you purchase !

0 upvotes
GK UK
By GK UK (Dec 6, 2011)

I contacted my local Sigma supplier on the subject of the price and the quality of the new lens. Whilst they didn't tell me much, it does appear we can expect to hear more from Sigma in the next few days. The response:
"Sigma UK are at the mercy of our Parent company for pricing announcements etc. DP Review who are based in Seattle have contacted Sigma America to comment on the issue of pricing. There should be a comment within the next few days.
We have not yet had a sample of the new lenses so we are unable to comment on the difference between the two."

0 upvotes
kenyee
By kenyee (Dec 6, 2011)

lol...if they reduced the price it might make sense, but as it is now, no...unless optical performance magically got better on Pentax/Sony systems by locking the lens elements in place w/ something that doesn't fall off or weaken over time :-)

It's too bad...drop the lens down to the $400 street price point and they'd have a lot more buyers...

0 upvotes
Fl_Gulfer
By Fl_Gulfer (Dec 6, 2011)

The only good IS is a Tripod, the rest are just ok.

0 upvotes
gradyp
By gradyp (Dec 6, 2011)

What a crock of s#1+. I just bought the 17-50 reluctantly because Sigma also recently dropped IS from the 17-70. I need the IS to be able to take longer videos on the a55.

If they dropped the price on this to be in line with the Tamron 17-50 then it might be worth looking at but the money would still be better spent elsewhere. I'm wondering how much of this move was due to pressure from the notoriously evil Sony corporate types.

Sigma has burned me so many times in the past, my 17-50 with OS will be the last Sigma lens I ever buy.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
armanius
By armanius (Dec 5, 2011)

Looks like all Sigma is doing is disabling the stabilization motor in the lens. The size is identical, and the weight is only 15 grams less than the stabilized version. Similar to other Sigma and Tamron pricing moves, I sincerely doubt Sigma will charge less for the non-stabilized version (as compared to the IS version).

0 upvotes
rsf3127
By rsf3127 (Dec 5, 2011)

Sony 16-50mm does the job brilliantly and would be my first choice in that range even if the Sigma was at a lower price than its OS version.

0 upvotes
elleyyh
By elleyyh (Dec 5, 2011)

All photographers, do not jump into conclusion. It's just a release letter. The price will change any time when it's released onto the street. I wouldn't want OS for such a short lens for the chance of distracting the image quality.

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Dec 5, 2011)

Well now there is nothing to differentiate between the Sony 16-50mm and the Sigma 17-50mm as both have HSM/SSM motors and both lack OIS. So no need to go for Sigma considering it costs the same the Sony and the Sony has the advantage of being weather resistant and less prone to sample variation.

Plus the Sony is guaranteed to be compatible with every Sony DSLR release. Sigma lenses first faced aperture problems with the first Sony SLT cameras and now they face AF issues with the newer A77 and A65. Best to avoid Sigma now more than ever.

6 upvotes
Anfernee Cheang
By Anfernee Cheang (Dec 5, 2011)

I am a Sony user who is considering a fast standard zoom. But I will not put this lens into my list, just because of its marketing decision of retaining the same price as OS version. This is nothing about quality. It's an attitude.

4 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Dec 4, 2011)

Not to seem like a troll, but in the past two things cross my mind. One is the insistance that having IS in the camera means cheaper lenses. Many of us have preached this not to be true, that IS is not that expensive considering the economy of scale. In some cases, it adds no cost after amortizing out the R&D in the case of Nikon and Canon whose lens might cost less than the equivalent non IS lens from Sony or Pentax. This is just another example, yet I guarantee that someone will bring it up again in the beginner's forum.

Secondly, I've heard so many times about the in-body being just as good as the in-lens IS, yet I hear a cry at the possibility of removing it from other lenses as well like the 50-500. Why is that? If in-body is just as good, why care if it is removed?

The only advantage I can see, and it's a darned good one, is in-body IS can help to stabilize older lenses which never had IS. As usual, in photography, it's a compromise. It would be nice to have both on my Nikons.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Dec 4, 2011)

The biggest advantage to me of lens IS, is with video. That's why the choice would be nice.

3 upvotes
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (Dec 5, 2011)

Adding O/S to a lens does add cost. Just look at what happens to the price of Sigma lenses when they bring out an O/S version of a lens that was previously lacking this. The cost goes through the roof.

The fact this lens is going to be priced the same as the O/S version is just stupid marketing from Sigma. They have guaranteed Sony sales for the 16-50.

3rd part lenses need some unique selling point to sell and when they are standard zooms like this and the camera maker makes an equivalent lens then that USP has got to be price. I'd be amazed if they keep the price high if they sell a single one of these lenses.

As a Sony user myself I do not want O/S in lenses because it just adds needless complexity with the floating lens group. It is just something else to go wrong.

Some Sony users will however like O/S in Sigma lenses because they can use them via an adapter on a Nex camera which lacks IBS. Does not appeal to me but does to others.

0 upvotes
Klipsen
By Klipsen (Dec 5, 2011)

In terms of image stabilisation, in-body is as good as in-lens.
The big advantage of in-lens is that it stabilises the viewfinder.

R&D costs for Pentax and Sony versions are not separate from Canon and Nikon versions, and if the OS version of the Bigma costs the same for Sony as for Nikon, why make a non-OS version of any other lens just because it's a Sony? It can only add to costs.

The biggest problem with in-lens is: You have to make sure that both systems aren't on or off at the same time.

0 upvotes
zstan
By zstan (Dec 4, 2011)

This is a joke right? Which Sony user will buy this lens? Non OS but cost the same. Pathetic marketing strategy.

3 upvotes
Archer66
By Archer66 (Dec 4, 2011)

First sentence has a typo DG -> DC

0 upvotes
Lucas_
By Lucas_ (Dec 4, 2011)

I rather buy the Sony 16-50/2.8 for $30 more, optically better and smaller.

9 upvotes
rtogog
By rtogog (Dec 4, 2011)

Yes, this sony is wider and just checked that some e-bay seller offer the same price.

0 upvotes
wutsurstyle
By wutsurstyle (Dec 4, 2011)

What are you guys talking about? This is clearly for Pentax and Sony owners with built-in stabilization in the camera body in the form of sensor-shift. Having a optically stabilized lens with an in-camera stabilization makes things worse. To answer a lot of your questions, it is Pentax and Sony owners of the aforementioned cameras that will buy this lens instead of the OS version. Think about it.

I whole heartedly agree, however, that the suggestion to make it same market price is foolish and a rip off. At the very LEAST, make it smaller, cheaper, lighter weight, or optically better. Optical stabilization is usually from a couple gyrating lens elements. I wonder if they just disabled the motor that spins them and left it inside (motor and gyrating lenses). What a low blow Sigma!

0 upvotes
Sordid
By Sordid (Dec 4, 2011)

Being a Sony owner myself, I think that lens IS is better than the built-in OS by at least half a stop.

0 upvotes
exp1orer
By exp1orer (Dec 4, 2011)

have you read the reactions here? most people who reacted are Pentax and Sony owners.

making it smaller that what it is now will make it even more expensive because it means totally new investment for facilities, equipments, tooling, , etc. But removing the unnecessary parts (OS) inside would mean less cost for components. But I suspect that Sigma's design is all integrated because they started with the OS design. This means removing the OS parts would make the whole lens inoperable. So they still probably have to put all the OS elements and components necessary to make it work.

0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Dec 4, 2011)

As a Pentax user I can tell you that stabilization on body, wich can be disabled on set up, is fine but not better than OS on lens, so may work perfect on Pentax and I asume on Sonys cameras. For me HSM is nice but not essential as good optics is.

1 upvote
straylightrun
By straylightrun (Dec 5, 2011)

Having a system that has both lens image stabilization and body stabilization gives a user the best of both worlds.

For longer focal lengths, switch to lens stabilization as that will be more effective (by a little bit). Also shooting video is better with lens IS.

For primes you have body stabilization (Canon and Nikon don't have IS in any of their wide/normal primes).

For Sigma to take OS out of this lens and charge the same price is ridiculous. Even though Sigma and Tamron have been doing this practice for a few years, it's good to see dpreview making this as news and informing people, as it seems from reading alot of these comments that not many people are aware of this.

1 upvote
wutsurstyle
By wutsurstyle (Dec 6, 2011)

@waxwaine: I too am a Pentax user (and also Canon). I has the Sigma 17-70 HSM OS lens before, and did a review on Pentaxforums.com. The thing about OS implemented by Sigma is that the OS lens elements are continuously gyrating, even if you have the OS switch disabled. As a result, battery drains faster because the camera is still feeding the OS power.

@straylightrun: Yes, I agree with you. Longer focal lengths fare better with OS than body IS. Plus, video does not pick up sounds as much with lens OS. I just wanted to make a point that Pentax and Sony users are best-suited for non-OS lenses.

0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Dec 4, 2011)

Well.
Sigma is helping me to decide to go for Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, untead of Sigma one. Thank you Sigma!!!.

3 upvotes
rtogog
By rtogog (Dec 4, 2011)

but, Tamron haven't yet release HSM equivalent for Pentax & Sony.

0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Dec 4, 2011)

Yes, but the Tamron one is at least US200 cheaper than Sigma and Pentax, and acceptable well reviewed.

0 upvotes
rtogog
By rtogog (Dec 3, 2011)

Does it have "Quick Shift" to override the AF to MF for Pentax version ?
Still don't understand we have to pay more for the less features. Although I can understand the less market share and comparable effectiveness of in lens OS for shorter FL lens. Hopefully Sigma will not get rid in lens OS for longer lens.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
PaulSnowcat
By PaulSnowcat (Dec 3, 2011)

Right, the loss of the OS almost does not makes 17-50 worse, but it will make 18-250 MUCH worse, while for 50-500 it would be a disaster...

0 upvotes
Jack A. Zucker
By Jack A. Zucker (Dec 3, 2011)

i assume sony alpha and not e-mount? Maybe a bit more info would help...

0 upvotes
PaulSnowcat
By PaulSnowcat (Dec 3, 2011)

That's kinda funny... "We will give you a worse lens, but don't you dare to pay us less!". They could do at least a small price reduction...

0 upvotes
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (Dec 3, 2011)

What a slap in the face of Sony/Pentax owners..

And they are "pleased" to announce this new version.. Well, none of us are "pleased" by this announcement.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
13 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Dec 3, 2011)

I think its wierd and stupid. OS is actually useful even when you have IBIS. Thats why its much better to use Panasonic lens on Olympus than Olympus lens on Panasonic. Cause on Olympus you can choose which kind of stabilisation you want and for longer lens, lens based stabilisation is pretty usefull (on short end for longer exposures is actually IBIS quite handy).

Its better to be able to choose what you want, than not being able to do that.

1 upvote
bavarius6
By bavarius6 (Dec 3, 2011)

Had it been cheaper than the OS version, as it should be, I would have been a possible purchaser. As Sigma are obviously intent on ripping off Pentax and Sony users I won't be buying. Bad business decision Sigma!

1 upvote
gqc
By gqc (Dec 3, 2011)

Waiting for 50-150mm to be released.

2 upvotes
Blue Springs
By Blue Springs (Dec 3, 2011)

Lets see. . .in February they said we'd have a new 50-150 OS in May. Hmmmm. . .here it is December. Still waiting. They need to hire some new marketing genius.

2 upvotes
Rule 34
By Rule 34 (Dec 3, 2011)

The massive tsunami followed by the worst nuclear meltdown in history followed by massive flooding in some primary manufacturing areas probably didn't have anything to do with it.

1 upvote
straylightrun
By straylightrun (Dec 3, 2011)

This is nothing new. Sigma usually does this with lenses they produce for the Sony mount version. For example the Sigma 30/1.4 in a-mount does not have HSM and it's the same price as the other versions. Tamron also does this eg. their 18-270mm comes with PZD and VC, except the Sony has no VC and it's the same price.

The real upside to shooting with Sony/Pentax is having image stabilization for primes.

0 upvotes
Miwok
By Miwok (Dec 4, 2011)

Also, no HSM on my Sigma 10-20 for Sony, but same price .

0 upvotes
CAClark
By CAClark (Dec 3, 2011)

Whatever happened to the MFT lenses that Sigma were going to make?

0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Dec 3, 2011)

Wow. What an advantage. The same optics with less features for the same price.

9 upvotes
noss
By noss (Dec 3, 2011)

But with less demand too.

1 upvote
Jonathan Wilson
By Jonathan Wilson (Dec 4, 2011)

And even less demand with decisions like this.

I mean its not like it had to be much less to sway people - even a token amount would have been better.

0 upvotes
geo444
By geo444 (Dec 3, 2011)

.

Sigma 17-50 F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Canon: 17 Elements, 13 Groups

Sigma 17-50 F2.8 EX DC HSM Pentax: 17 Elements, 13 Groups ??

... are the OS Elements Glued ?? :)

;)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Karl Gnter Wnsch
By Karl Gnter Wnsch (Dec 5, 2011)

It isn't economically feasible to produce different optical makeups, so yes, they simply have remove the sensors and micro motors that moved the OS group and fixed them in place.

0 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (Dec 3, 2011)

Tamron's 17-50mm F2.8 is an optically marvellous zoom, which is better optically than almost all 18-50mm/17-50mm F2.8 Sigma zooms and at a FRACTION of the Sigma lenses' prices. Sigma has occasional marketing black outs, SD1 being a major one; also, I still cannot understand why the superb 50-150mm F2.8 was discontinued.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
exp1orer
By exp1orer (Dec 3, 2011)

Pentax Forum (other site) tested the 3 lenses and the Sigma came out on the top followed by Tamron and Pentax at the bottom. However, the difference between Sigma and Tamron was not significant. So Tamron is the best value for money.

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Dec 3, 2011)

There is quite high sample variations, so test of Tamron/Sigma should be done from like at least 5 samples, to actually prove something. :D Tho generally I think Tamron is slightly better in this regard (sample variation).

0 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Dec 3, 2011)

The original Tamron's 17-50mm F2.8 is optically great but build quality not so. The second generation of Tamron's 17-50mm F2.8 adds image stabilization but is not optically on the same level as the first generation version nor as the sigma 18-50 F2.8.

0 upvotes
Sordid
By Sordid (Dec 3, 2011)

"The Japanese recommended selling price remains the same as for the OS version."

That's a really smart decision. This lens will be a heavy seller!

3 upvotes
standor
By standor (Dec 3, 2011)

The biggest Sigma's advantage was HSM and OS.
The biggest Sigma's disadvantage was high price.
Sigma decided to remove it's biggest selling advantage and retaining the biggest disadvantage. ...and STOP produce the older better model in favor of worse new model. Why to buy this lens???? I'm interesting for it's reviews.
... similarly I do not understand why SIGMA stopped production of good 50-150/2.8 non stabilized lens months ago and announced new OS version which availability is unknown ..... there is currently no sigma 50-150/2.8 on the market neither old nor new model.....

4 upvotes
exp1orer
By exp1orer (Dec 3, 2011)

i absolutely agree on non-stabilized 50-150/2.8. they should just have continued making it. that lens has a compact size, HSM, non-extending, very nice bokeh and the price is just reasonable.

1 upvote
MGJA
By MGJA (Dec 3, 2011)

This could have been interesting. If

a) The lens was measurably smaller than the predecessor. No information in the press release about that.

b) The optical quality is significantly higher than the OS version. Again, no way to tell from the sales pitch.

Assuming they would have crowed about it if any of those were true, it seems like just another ripoff - selling less at the same inflated price. But I suppose they need a fatter margin to meet the CEO bonus after their brilliant SD1 moves...

3 upvotes
rondhamalam
By rondhamalam (Dec 3, 2011)

brilliant....

1 upvote
Karl Gnter Wnsch
By Karl Gnter Wnsch (Dec 3, 2011)

Why would anyone now buy this lens? The appeal of the lens was mainly in the optical stabilizer the predecessor had as it is more efficient than the built in stabilizers, reduced the overheating issue of the SLT cameras, stabilized the viewfinder, stabilized the image the autofocus works with - so now this lens is just another "Oh Sigma produces one of these as well..."

2 upvotes
Nello
By Nello (Dec 3, 2011)

I've heard Toyota is releasing a new citycar without headlights for the same price of the older model. You're gonna use it in your brightly-lit city/metropolis anyway...

4 upvotes
geoffire
By geoffire (Dec 3, 2011)

Way to remove your sole advantage on A-mount. What about the Nex+adapter crowd? You think they don't want OS?

4 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Dec 3, 2011)

There's not much reason to get the Sigma 17-50 over the old non-stabilized Tamron 17-50. I'd get that one, especially since Sigma doesn't want to cut the price after removing a headline feature (OS).

1 upvote
robbo d
By robbo d (Dec 3, 2011)

Wow.....I am amazed at the hate mail these new products get, Lol.

Would have thought someone just took one of your favourite toys !!!! The Pentax Q has a rival for negative reaction here..........

Now I am looking to upgrade my glass from Pentax kit, so already have image stab in camera, like the quality of EX glass, cheaper than Pentax glass.....

Hmmmmm, am I missing something here, I would have thought it would be a definite option for someone like me????

Arent Sigma just offering a specific option for people with in camera stab?? Would have thought that was commendable, as you can get issues with trying to use lens stab at the same time.

0 upvotes
exp1orer
By exp1orer (Dec 3, 2011)

Tamron has a non-stabilized 17-50/2.8 for Pentax mount for a much cheaper price....and based on the other forum (Pentax Forum) review of the 3 lenses, Tamron is a close runner up against Sigma.

3 upvotes
Scott Nicol
By Scott Nicol (Dec 3, 2011)

robbo, the anger is because Sigma released the OS version 2 years ago for Sony / Pentax, but are now revising the design to remove the OS without any additional features e.g. reduction in size / weight / improved IQ but plan to charge exactly the same as before.. and stop making the earlier OS version in Sony / pentax.. but keep making the canikon version WITH OS.

1 upvote
trainpentaxk7
By trainpentaxk7 (Dec 3, 2011)

Come on....really, no reduction in price? De-content and retain current price...way to get people to try 3rd party products!

6 upvotes
spoorthy
By spoorthy (Dec 3, 2011)

i bet if they reduced the price it would sell like hot cakes, but right now i think the tamron 17-50 is still the better choice

1 upvote
Lupti
By Lupti (Dec 3, 2011)

From my past experience with Sigma on four different mouns I can say: Shove your lenses up your a**, Sigma!
Quality control don´t exists. Decentered lenses are the rule rather than the exception.
I would rather stick a K-mount adapter to a old jam glass than using a Sigma lens.

5 upvotes
Rule 34
By Rule 34 (Dec 3, 2011)

I own a Pentax K7. Considering Pentax only makes one f2.8 SDM at this range that costs $1500 or so and has far worse distortion characteristics than the sigma which is ~$800 cheaper I can still see the benefit for that system at least. I could care less about lens based stabilization systems, half the reason for buying a Pentax was to avoid needing that in a lens. I agree that they should drop the price a bit for the non-OS version though, the hardware can't be free.

1 upvote
Michael Alex
By Michael Alex (Dec 3, 2011)

I would sell you DA*16-50 for $1,500 if you want, but the rest of us can get it new for $849.95 from Amazon or B&H.

Regretfully, Sigma remains on my "don't touch this" list for good, hence the annoying QC as Lupti points out...

6 upvotes
OXwing
By OXwing (Dec 3, 2011)

LOL~ Just got my 16-50/2.8 on Black Friday from BH for $750 ~ Love the lens~.

1 upvote
Rule 34
By Rule 34 (Dec 3, 2011)

:-( Looks like an epic Google failure earlier. I'm seeing the price you quoted above now. I'm still standing by the Pentax being fairly ridiculous on the level of distortion for a lens that expensive. These days though, who cares... that's why we have in camera corrections and / or Lightroom.

0 upvotes
lutz
By lutz (Dec 3, 2011)

Well, I have the OS version for the Sony mount. While I hardly use the lens OS -since using the in-body-stabilization saves battery (and is just as good if not shooting video), I have to say that this is my favorite lens.
It produces fantastically sharp pictures most of the time and the colors are nice, too.

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Dec 3, 2011)

More likely the sales volumes these two brands are not hi enough, so to keep the price comptetitive , they remove uncessesary stuff.

0 upvotes
Argote
By Argote (Dec 3, 2011)

Well, you can make the argument that the removal of the OS element inside the lens results in higher IQ.

For an example see the fact that the 70-200 non-OS version was sharper than the new OS version and on Sony and Pentax mounts it was already Image Stabilized.

2 upvotes
eljamoquio
By eljamoquio (Dec 4, 2011)

The press release seems to indicate the same # of elements and # of groups. It seems like they used the same lens design but just permanently 'fixed' the lens elements that used to move.

1 upvote
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Dec 2, 2011)

It seems the commentary on any product is now only negative.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Dec 3, 2011)

Well to be fair, they just said they are re-releasing the lens without stabilization and keeping the price the same. So should we be excited?

4 upvotes
Rule 34
By Rule 34 (Dec 3, 2011)

Sigma would introduce a lens with 3 front elements splitting off at 120 degree angles that created a blurry mess on a single frame and then claim that it tripled your megapixel count because it was capturing 3 images at once.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Dec 2, 2011)

Decision making at Sig lately has been very interesting.

2 upvotes
cafenated
By cafenated (Dec 2, 2011)

wonder if the nikon suit had something to do with this?

0 upvotes
tesch
By tesch (Dec 2, 2011)

Seriously? I’ve been thinking about this for the last half an hour and trying to give Sigma the benefit of the doubt because they are a successful company. But I just can make any sense of this lens. Why are they duplicating what already exists in the market. The Sony 16-50 is almost the same price and with no weather sealing on the Sigma, I don’t see any value added. Why one would choose this lens over the kit lens. It’s really quite strange. Are they trying to capitalize on shortages caused by the floods in Thailand? That seems a little short sited. Strange!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Rule 34
By Rule 34 (Dec 3, 2011)

After their SD1 release they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt about anything...

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (Dec 2, 2011)

Maybe its the exact same lens and they disabled the IS mechanism.

2 upvotes
Mistral75
By Mistral75 (Dec 3, 2011)

Exactly so.

0 upvotes
exp1orer
By exp1orer (Dec 2, 2011)

no. i don't need it. i already got the non-stabilized Tamron 17-50/2.8 for my K5 for a lot cheaper price than Pentax and Sigma equivalent...and the tammy gives me 5-year warranty.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Total comments: 97
12