Sigma 17-70 or Pentax 16-45?

njdevil1 · Oct 10, 2006

Hey Gang,

Trying to decide between the two. Anyone one have any thoughts which would perform better optically? My other lens, for now, is going to be the Pentax 50-200. Both will be used with the 10D. Thanks!

Foxbat121 · Oct 10, 2006

For example:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=20134282

Hythloday · Oct 10, 2006

and I chose the Sigma 17-70mm.

Why?

The Pentax 16-45mm f/4.0 has a range which is a bit limited. The 16mm is very nice but the 45mm is too short to use it as a walkaround. When you also buy the Pentax 50-200mm you have to change lenses quite often which may be the cause for a dirty sensor.

The Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro is in the range 17-45mm a f/2.8-4.0 lens. You you get two bonuses:

1. faster at the wide angle range
2. the range 45-70mm

When you also buy the Pentax 50-200mm you don't have to change your lenses so often. The sensor will be cleaner.

The Pentax K100D and the Sigma 17-70mm are a good combination. But Photoshop Elements 5.0 indicates that the Sigma 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 lens is used instead of the Sigma 17-70mm lens. PTLens cannot detect the lens, so I had to disable the "Select Lens" option. Everything works fine now.

It is a matter of taste. It also depends on what kind of photographer you are. If you mainly use the wide angle range the Pentax 16-45mm is a good choice. With my Canon 300D I had a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC lens. The range was too short for me: too little wide angle and too little tele.

njdevil1 said:
Hey Gang,

Trying to decide between the two. Anyone one have any thoughts
which would perform better optically? My other lens, for now, is
going to be the Pentax 50-200. Both will be used with the 10D.
Thanks!

ahilgaz · Oct 10, 2006

Ahmet
*ist-anbul

Dagatech · Oct 10, 2006

I've been trying to make this same decision for a while now, and the consensus on the boards seems to be that the Sigma is just as good as the 16-45, plus you get the extra range. However, a few people have commented that the 1mm on the wide actually does make a big difference, so I suppose that could influence you.

There's been some mention of bad copies of Sigma lenses, although I haven't seen any reports of that on the 17-70. Anyone?

Hawk_I · Oct 10, 2006

If it was me, and since you are looking to get the 10D, I would wait for the DS* releases in March.

Hythloday · Oct 10, 2006

is quite a lot as I experienced when I bought a Sigma 17-70mm lens. I had used the Sigma 18-125mm a lot before that. 17mm instead of 18mm meant quite a lot to me. I meant so much that I was quite willing to give up the range 70-125mm.

I did some statistics when I checked my last holiday pictures:

I use the range 17-20mm for some 35%, the range 21-25mm for another 35%. The range 45-70mm I used for only 15% of my pictures.

Personally I would like to miss the 45-70mm range because apart from the Pentax K100D + Sigma 17-70mm, I also use a Canon 300D + Tokina 12-24mm lens.

Dagatech said:
I've been trying to make this same decision for a while now, and
the consensus on the boards seems to be that the Sigma is just as
good as the 16-45, plus you get the extra range. However, a few
people have commented that the 1mm on the wide actually does make a
big difference, so I suppose that could influence you.

There's been some mention of bad copies of Sigma lenses, although I
haven't seen any reports of that on the 17-70. Anyone?

flash1100 · Oct 10, 2006

njdevil1 said:
Hey Gang,

Trying to decide between the two. Anyone one have any thoughts
which would perform better optically? My other lens, for now, is
going to be the Pentax 50-200. Both will be used with the 10D.
Thanks!

I have recently got the DA16-45 which has replaced the Sigma 18-125. I have found that i don't miss the extra length, and I do really appreciate the extra 2mm. Although it may depend on your prefered subject - mine is landscape so the extra 2mm is warranted, and obvioulsy I will miss the extra length alot less.

--
Cheers

Gordon
Perth, Western Australia

Cameron C · Oct 10, 2006

I also have the 18-125 and am looking to upgrade to either the 17-70 or 16-45.

How would you describe the optical and image quality difference between the 18-125 and the 17-70 lenses?

Thanks,
Cameron.

Cameron C · Oct 10, 2006

As with my previous post above - I also have the 18-125 and am looking to upgrade to either the 17-70 or 16-45.

How would you describe the optical and image quality difference between the 18-125 and the 16-45?

Thanks,
Cameron.

ahilgaz · Oct 10, 2006

Cameron C said:
I also have the 18-125 and am looking to upgrade to either the
17-70 or 16-45.

How would you describe the optical and image quality difference
between the 18-125 and the 17-70 lenses?

Thanks,
Cameron.

Rule of thumb says the bigger a zoom is the less quality you will get. Generally of course.
--
Ahmet
*ist-anbul

Cameron C · Oct 10, 2006

Yes - I agree - but I'm interested in practical experience of someone who has used both lenses and their 'feel' for the differences.

Cameron.

flash1100 · Oct 11, 2006

Cameron C said:
As with my previous post above - I also have the 18-125 and am
looking to upgrade to either the 17-70 or 16-45.

How would you describe the optical and image quality difference
between the 18-125 and the 16-45?

Hi Cameron

The IQ of the DA16-45 is very good, and IMHO much better than the 18--125, especially in the range 18-28mm. On my DS the 18-125 will only open up to f4.5. Stopped down to f8 and in the 40mm + - range the 18-125 is pretty good. Another big difference with the DA16-45 is the what I consider exceptional colour rendition - seems to be a common trait of the better Pentax lenses.

Here are a few images taken with the DA16-45:

http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e69/flash1100/Kings%20Park%20Perth/

Good luck with your decision

--
Cheers

Gordon
Perth, Western Australia

Hythloday · Oct 11, 2006

all my images and correct distortions, chromatic aberrations, etc.

Honestly speaking I see little difference between the Sigma 18-125mm and the Sigma 17-70mm lenses.

But I like the Sigma 17-70mm better because:

1. the extra 1 mm at the wide angle side
2. the image quality at aperture 5.6

The Sigma 18-125mm is a slow lens and produces good quality images at aperture 8.0 and higher. If you correct many lens faults the lens is OK. The Sigma 17-70mm is faster and produces better quality at aperture 5.6.

Therefore I sold my Sigma 18-125mm lens.

Cameron C said:
I also have the 18-125 and am looking to upgrade to either the
17-70 or 16-45.

How would you describe the optical and image quality difference
between the 18-125 and the 17-70 lenses?

Thanks,
Cameron.

K1000Photographer · Oct 11, 2006

ahilgaz said:
Rule of thumb says the bigger a zoom is the less quality you will
get. Generally of course.
--
Ahmet
*ist-anbul

Yes, that is true, but I have been looking at some comparisons and the 17-70 is at least as good as the 18-50/2.8. It is also better than a Canon 24mm prime. Some say it is better than the DA16-45.

This lens seems to be quite special. I may only buy one lens this year and my choice is between the Sigma 17-70 and the DA21. Right now, I am leaning toward the Sigma zoom. Has anyone done a comparison between the 2?

Mark Prinz · Oct 11, 2006

This is the only place I could find reviews of both lenses (although I haven't searched long, so there may be more): http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand= 'Pentax'%20OR%20brand='Sigma%20AF'%20OR%20brand='Tamron%20AF'%20or%20brand='Tokina%20AF'%20or%20brand='Vivitar%20AF'%22

These are just user reviews (surveys) so take it with a grain of salt, but the basic consensus seems to be:

The Pentax does better at the wide end
The Pentax has little to no flare, which is "heavy" on the Sigma

Oddly they have higher distortion ratings on the Pentax, though most people here tend to say that the Pentax has less distortion

They perform equally at the tele end (with the Pentax just a tad better, but it's also only at 45mm as opposed to 70mm)

Optical verdict:

Pentax: 3.81/5.0
Sigma: 3.14/5.0

Again these are just survey ratings, no formal tests, but it was the only place I could find both on the same site (much fewer review sites for Pentax than Nikon lenses)

--
http://www.photobird.com/prinz/
http://mutedphotos.deviantart.com/

KL Matt · Oct 11, 2006

Hi Gordon,

flash1100 said:
Another big difference with the DA16-45
is the what I consider exceptional colour rendition - seems to be a
common trait of the better Pentax lenses.

Yep, that would be the reason to choose the 16-45 over the 17-70. Other than color (I really like the 16-45), the 17-70 (I don't like this lens' color rendering, it seems very warm and odd) seems to be the equal or better of the Pentax lens. But everyone literally sees color differently.

I don't think it's all that straightforward to post process a 17-70 image so that the colors look like it came from a 16-45. If someone figures out a way, then great, my problem is solved, but I seriously doubt a simple WB adjustment will really give the same results. Someone proove me wrong!

Matt

ahilgaz · Oct 11, 2006

KL Matt said:
I don't think it's all that straightforward to post process a 17-70
image so that the colors look like it came from a 16-45. If someone
figures out a way, then great, my problem is solved, but I
seriously doubt a simple WB adjustment will really give the same
results. Someone proove me wrong!

Matt

I would guess if you did white balance manually with a white paper before shooting at each location/lighting then you could get rid of the warmth in th Sigma. That is only a guess(Hope it's an educated one)
--
Ahmet
*ist-anbul +2GMT

John Bean (UK) · Oct 11, 2006

ahilgaz said:
KL Matt said:

I don't think it's all that straightforward to post process a 17-70
image so that the colors look like it came from a 16-45. If someone
figures out a way, then great, my problem is solved, but I
seriously doubt a simple WB adjustment will really give the same
results. Someone proove me wrong!

Matt

Click to expand...

I would guess if you did white balance manually with a white paper
before shooting at each location/lighting then you could get rid of
the warmth in th Sigma. That is only a guess(Hope it's an educated
one)

I have a 17-70 but no 16-45, but I have several other Pentax lenses, There's quite a lot of variation in the Pentax colours, almost as much difference as one Pentax and the Sigma. I also have a Zenitar which is radically different in image colour from any of the others.

However, if I custom WB for each lens on the same target the resulting images show virtually no colour variations at all, though the Zenitar ends up looking a trace more blue and my DA40 a trace more pink compared with my benchmark A50/1.4. All the others - including the Sigma - look pretty much the same.

--
John Bean

PAW Week 40:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1082841/3/100679082/Large

Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582

John Bean (UK) · Oct 11, 2006

Mark Prinz said:
The Pentax has little to no flare, which is "heavy" on the Sigma

I can't speak for the Pentax but my 17-70 is without doubt the most flare-resistant wide-to-tele zoom I've ever used, including the much more expensive and well-respected "pro" Olympus 14-54 on the E-1. The Oly lens beats the Sigma hands-down on distortion, CA, and corner sharpness wide-open but the Sigma is flare-free in all but the most extreme situations.

--
John Bean

PAW Week 40:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1082841/3/100679082/Large

Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582

Sigma 17-70 or Pentax 16-45?

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts