Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look that is handy for transportation, obviously. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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. -- Boris -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Thanks for the comments so far. Given me some things to think about. I have a fader ND filter at 67mm dia, so the Pentax 17-70 would fit it, but leery of the SDM from what i have read previously. I don t need IS as its in the K-5 body so that would be a wasted Sigma feature. Decisions decisions. Dave On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look that is handy for transportation, obviously. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
One of local Pentaxians had 17-70/4. The SDM failed on him and being a handy person he took it apart. I won't repeat what he told me so as not to insult anyone. It was a very strong arguments against the SDM lenses, at least the cheaper ones. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:27 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the comments so far. Given me some things to think about. I have a fader ND filter at 67mm dia, so the Pentax 17-70 would fit it, but leery of the SDM from what i have read previously. I don t need IS as its in the K-5 body so that would be a wasted Sigma feature. Decisions decisions. Dave On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look that is handy for transportation, obviously. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Fader filters don't work too well below 70mm, especially as you get to the higher levels of filtering. An X tends to appear in the image due to the design of the filter. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:27 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the comments so far. Given me some things to think about. I have a fader ND filter at 67mm dia, so the Pentax 17-70 would fit it, but leery of the SDM from what i have read previously. I don t need IS as its in the K-5 body so that would be a wasted Sigma feature. Decisions decisions. Dave On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look that is handy for transportation, obviously. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
what did he say? why would we be insulted? if its poorly built, its poorly built. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: One of local Pentaxians had 17-70/4. The SDM failed on him and being a handy person he took it apart. I won't repeat what he told me so as not to insult anyone. It was a very strong arguments against the SDM lenses, at least the cheaper ones. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:27 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the comments so far. Given me some things to think about. I have a fader ND filter at 67mm dia, so the Pentax 17-70 would fit it, but leery of the SDM from what i have read previously. I don t need IS as its in the K-5 body so that would be a wasted Sigma feature. Decisions decisions. Dave On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look that is handy for transportation, obviously. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Boris said: ...indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy Boris, I have found this to be a general phenomenon; as things age, they start to appear creepy to others. You'll find out soon enough! stan On Jul 24, 2013, at 2:21 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look that is handy for transportation, obviously. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
LOL...so true. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: Boris said: ...indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy Boris, I have found this to be a general phenomenon; as things age, they start to appear creepy to others. You'll find out soon enough! stan On Jul 24, 2013, at 2:21 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look that is handy for transportation, obviously. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Pretty much he said that it was shameful engineering... On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: what did he say? why would we be insulted? if its poorly built, its poorly built. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: One of local Pentaxians had 17-70/4. The SDM failed on him and being a handy person he took it apart. I won't repeat what he told me so as not to insult anyone. It was a very strong arguments against the SDM lenses, at least the cheaper ones. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:27 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the comments so far. Given me some things to think about. I have a fader ND filter at 67mm dia, so the Pentax 17-70 would fit it, but leery of the SDM from what i have read previously. I don t need IS as its in the K-5 body so that would be a wasted Sigma feature. Decisions decisions. Dave On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look that is handy for transportation, obviously. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Well, I was expecting that someone would notice my use of the word creepy... And so it came to be ;-). On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: LOL...so true. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: Boris said: ...indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy Boris, I have found this to be a general phenomenon; as things age, they start to appear creepy to others. You'll find out soon enough! stan On Jul 24, 2013, at 2:21 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look that is handy for transportation, obviously. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- Boris -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
i think the big problem is that the lubricant seizes on the sdm motors rendering them useless. my guess is that they've fixed SDM now that they finally admitted it was faulty. they should have offered to fix everyone's lenses. way to stand by your products pentax! fuji bit the bullet and replaced a bunch of sensors on their cameras. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty much he said that it was shameful engineering... On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: what did he say? why would we be insulted? if its poorly built, its poorly built. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: One of local Pentaxians had 17-70/4. The SDM failed on him and being a handy person he took it apart. I won't repeat what he told me so as not to insult anyone. It was a very strong arguments against the SDM lenses, at least the cheaper ones. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:27 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the comments so far. Given me some things to think about. I have a fader ND filter at 67mm dia, so the Pentax 17-70 would fit it, but leery of the SDM from what i have read previously. I don t need IS as its in the K-5 body so that would be a wasted Sigma feature. Decisions decisions. Dave On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look that is handy for transportation, obviously. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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. -- Boris -- 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
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
You don't really want to look inside any modern autofocus lens. Compared to even the cheapest old brass and glass manual focus lens they appear to be made of well the best was I can describe it is cheap roughly finished stampings. The Japanese especially have a knack of reducing the cost and making parts only as costly as they absolutely have to be. Let's take two similar lenses, which I've partially disassembled. a Vivitar 17-28mm rectilinear from the 1980's, and a Pentax FA 20-35mm rectilinear. The internal parts of the Vivitar were all metal, machined and cast very nicely finished, hand assembled and in operation the zoom and focus rings turned as smooth as silk. The Pentax, well except for a the gearing mostly plastic not rough finished but not the smoothest either, the gearing for the autofocus is aparently stainless steel and very nicely finished and pretty close fit, the rest fit together nicely but still a bit loose. The zoom and focus rings were nicely damped but the feel was plastic sliding on plastic, with the focus ring sometimes eliciting a slight whirring sound from the metal gearing. The difference, the Pentax focuses accurately at all focal lengths, the Vivitar not so much, those lovely finished cast and machined parts were made not of brass, but some kind of pot metal, that was too easily deformed, so a few moderate knocks and the focus while smooth made no apparent change in the viewfinder or on film, which was why I took it apart. The Pentax by the way got some fine grit in it's works, and I only took it apart enough to blow it out. Once reassembled it works well to this day. I've partially disassembled a number of autofocus lenses and really I don't want to know what's inside as long as they work. They remind me of computer programs under the covers. On 7/24/2013 8:35 AM, Zos Xavius wrote: what did he say? why would we be insulted? if its poorly built, its poorly built. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: One of local Pentaxians had 17-70/4. The SDM failed on him and being a handy person he took it apart. I won't repeat what he told me so as not to insult anyone. It was a very strong arguments against the SDM lenses, at least the cheaper ones. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:27 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the comments so far. Given me some things to think about. I have a fader ND filter at 67mm dia, so the Pentax 17-70 would fit it, but leery of the SDM from what i have read previously. I don t need IS as its in the K-5 body so that would be a wasted Sigma feature. Decisions decisions. Dave On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look that is handy for transportation, obviously. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Zos, he was referring to very low quality of plastics used in the moving parts of the mechanism and in general to very poor engineering quality of the whole mechanism. But again - we're playing a broken phone here. Suffices it to say, I opted not to buy DA 17-70 and ultimately decided to stay with good old screw-driven AF of my Sigma 17-70... On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: i think the big problem is that the lubricant seizes on the sdm motors rendering them useless. my guess is that they've fixed SDM now that they finally admitted it was faulty. they should have offered to fix everyone's lenses. way to stand by your products pentax! fuji bit the bullet and replaced a bunch of sensors on their cameras. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty much he said that it was shameful engineering... On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: what did he say? why would we be insulted? if its poorly built, its poorly built. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: One of local Pentaxians had 17-70/4. The SDM failed on him and being a handy person he took it apart. I won't repeat what he told me so as not to insult anyone. It was a very strong arguments against the SDM lenses, at least the cheaper ones. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:27 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the comments so far. Given me some things to think about. I have a fader ND filter at 67mm dia, so the Pentax 17-70 would fit it, but leery of the SDM from what i have read previously. I don t need IS as its in the K-5 body so that would be a wasted Sigma feature. Decisions decisions. Dave On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look that is handy for transportation, obviously. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
screw drive for the win! :) On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: Zos, he was referring to very low quality of plastics used in the moving parts of the mechanism and in general to very poor engineering quality of the whole mechanism. But again - we're playing a broken phone here. Suffices it to say, I opted not to buy DA 17-70 and ultimately decided to stay with good old screw-driven AF of my Sigma 17-70... On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: i think the big problem is that the lubricant seizes on the sdm motors rendering them useless. my guess is that they've fixed SDM now that they finally admitted it was faulty. they should have offered to fix everyone's lenses. way to stand by your products pentax! fuji bit the bullet and replaced a bunch of sensors on their cameras. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty much he said that it was shameful engineering... On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: what did he say? why would we be insulted? if its poorly built, its poorly built. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: One of local Pentaxians had 17-70/4. The SDM failed on him and being a handy person he took it apart. I won't repeat what he told me so as not to insult anyone. It was a very strong arguments against the SDM lenses, at least the cheaper ones. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:27 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the comments so far. Given me some things to think about. I have a fader ND filter at 67mm dia, so the Pentax 17-70 would fit it, but leery of the SDM from what i have read previously. I don t need IS as its in the K-5 body so that would be a wasted Sigma feature. Decisions decisions. Dave On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look that is handy for transportation, obviously. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Zos, you have to realize that availability of service, its quality and the fact that I normally don't have backup for everything (such as every lens, etc) are important factors here. If you have good service and have sufficiently many lenses, the SDM may not pose that much of an issue. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: screw drive for the win! :) On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: Zos, he was referring to very low quality of plastics used in the moving parts of the mechanism and in general to very poor engineering quality of the whole mechanism. But again - we're playing a broken phone here. Suffices it to say, I opted not to buy DA 17-70 and ultimately decided to stay with good old screw-driven AF of my Sigma 17-70... On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: i think the big problem is that the lubricant seizes on the sdm motors rendering them useless. my guess is that they've fixed SDM now that they finally admitted it was faulty. they should have offered to fix everyone's lenses. way to stand by your products pentax! fuji bit the bullet and replaced a bunch of sensors on their cameras. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty much he said that it was shameful engineering... On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: what did he say? why would we be insulted? if its poorly built, its poorly built. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: One of local Pentaxians had 17-70/4. The SDM failed on him and being a handy person he took it apart. I won't repeat what he told me so as not to insult anyone. It was a very strong arguments against the SDM lenses, at least the cheaper ones. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:27 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the comments so far. Given me some things to think about. I have a fader ND filter at 67mm dia, so the Pentax 17-70 would fit it, but leery of the SDM from what i have read previously. I don t need IS as its in the K-5 body so that would be a wasted Sigma feature. Decisions decisions. Dave On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: I concur. Although when I first saw the lens in your hands, Jaume, I did not expect to own it some day. I should point that it is not that heavy given the speed and zoom range. It is rather well made although indeed eventually the zoom becomes creepy. It does have the zoom look that is handy for transportation, obviously. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta jlah...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario
the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
I can't comment about the shorter zooms, but the Sigma 70-300 DG proved itself to me. Later I'll post some of the shots taken by my son at about 60 ft (across a gymnasium) at my graduation in May. It's the only Sigma that I have not named stigma. -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
I'm sure that Sigma has made some average performers, but the Sigma EX line has impressed me. I've got the EX 10-20mm, 28mm f1.8, and 50-500mm and I'm very pleased with each of them. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 AM, CollinB coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: I can't comment about the shorter zooms, but the Sigma 70-300 DG proved itself to me. Later I'll post some of the shots taken by my son at about 60 ft (across a gymnasium) at my graduation in May. It's the only Sigma that I have not named stigma. -- 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. -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
I should point out that Sigma appears to steadily improve, also in their non-EX department. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: I'm sure that Sigma has made some average performers, but the Sigma EX line has impressed me. I've got the EX 10-20mm, 28mm f1.8, and 50-500mm and I'm very pleased with each of them. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 AM, CollinB coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: I can't comment about the shorter zooms, but the Sigma 70-300 DG proved itself to me. Later I'll post some of the shots taken by my son at about 60 ft (across a gymnasium) at my graduation in May. It's the only Sigma that I have not named stigma. -- 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. -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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. -- Boris -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
From what I've seen and the sample images I have looked at I would rate the shorter zooms as follows: DA 16-45 New Sigma 17-70 Old Sigma 17-70 DA 17-70 DA 18-55 I feel that the DA 16-45 is sharper than the new 18-35 1.8 as well, though it suffers slightly more in the corners at 16mm, but from what I've seen of the new sigma 18-35, its not super hot in the corners either. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: I should point out that Sigma appears to steadily improve, also in their non-EX department. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: I'm sure that Sigma has made some average performers, but the Sigma EX line has impressed me. I've got the EX 10-20mm, 28mm f1.8, and 50-500mm and I'm very pleased with each of them. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:49 AM, CollinB coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: I can't comment about the shorter zooms, but the Sigma 70-300 DG proved itself to me. Later I'll post some of the shots taken by my son at about 60 ft (across a gymnasium) at my graduation in May. It's the only Sigma that I have not named stigma. -- 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. -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
I've been eying a DA 17-70 to complement my F 70-210. The Sigma is intriguing, but it still says Sigma on it and nothing says Significant Malfunctions like SigMa. (Yea, I know Sigma has improved a lot in the past decade, but I'm old and have a long memory). I did a little research on 18-135mm lenses a while ago for a friend, and the only one that seemed to be worth owning by all accounts was the Nikon. Remember the 18-135 is the same class, on APS-C digital, as the 28-200, on 35mm film, with pretty much the same image quality. The Pentax/Tamron 28-200 wasn't great on film but was pretty good on APS-C digital, (the center portion of the frame was pretty sharp at all apertures), at least my copy was, until I beat the hell out of it enough to case what looks like a decentering problem. Personally I'd go for the Pentax 17-70. On 7/23/2013 7:40 AM, David J Brooks wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive failure, and those that will. -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Hi, I also have the old Sigma 17-70 (actually I think that I have some responsibility in Boris owning one...) and I second Boris comments. The only complaint is that is is a bit heavy and the zoom eventually becomes loose. I have physically seen the latest version and I have to admit that it looks and feels extremely compact. However, my favorite compromise range / IQ would be the 18-135. Sigma has one but its reputation is worst than the 17-70s and the Pentax one seems a bit expensive. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original - De: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net CC: Enviado: Martes 23 de julio de 2013 13:47 Asunto: Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range Dave, I've (the oldest version of) Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. Such lenses can be had for order of USD 250-300. I cannot praise mine enough. It successfully replaced DA* 16-50/2.8. Later versions are 17-70/2.8-4.0 (notice faster long end of the zoom range) and further introduced HSM (Sigma's ultrasonic AF) and OS (Optical image Stabilization). I opted out of these as I wanted something as simple as possible so that it won't break down just because. Optically I've no complaints at all. It just what suits me best right now if and when I have to shoot with DSLR. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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. -- Boris -- 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. -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Dave, Here is what I wrote previously about my experience with Pentax 17-70/4: (2 years ago:) Also, albeit very subjectively (i.e. without quantitative and systematic tests), I found that 17-70/4 tends to produce somewhat sharper images of the dancers than 16-50/2.8 even at f/4 or f/5.6. The only way I can explain this is by different quality (or speed?) of focusing. I've been puzzled by that myself, and that why I chose to keep 17-70/4 last year. [I am not sure if I had a bad sample of 16-50/2.8/] (and more recently): I like Da 17-70/4 for its versatility (for the dance photography, for taking pictures of my little kid, and some other occasions). The image is not exceptional but very reasonable. (And somewhat better than from the one DA* 16-50/2.8 that I tried, - maybe that one was a bad samples.) I wish it were sharper on the longer end. To that, I would add that it gives me that longer reach (45-70 or 50-70) that neither 16-45 nor 16-50 give, but the quality in that range is inferior to that of 50-135/2.8. On my recent trips, if I am not planning to use long focal length, I've been taking 17-70/4 instead of the 18-250 that I used to take as the most universal travel lens. I haven't had a chance to compare 17-70/4 to the 17-70/2.8-4.0 from Sigma, which is a bit faster (I assume at the wide end, right Boris?). Hope this helps, Igor On 7/23/2013 7:40 AM, David J Brooks wrote: Hey all. This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200 VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the 16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom. So Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135??? I know these have come up before just looking for opinions. Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming on that one. Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated, Dave -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013, Igor Roshchin wrote: Here is what I wrote previously about my experience with Pentax 17-70/4: (2 years ago:) Also, albeit very subjectively (i.e. without quantitative and systematic tests), I found that 17-70/4 tends to produce somewhat sharper images of the dancers than 16-50/2.8 even at f/4 or f/5.6. The only way I can explain this is by different quality (or speed?) of focusing. I've been puzzled by that myself, and that why I chose to keep 17-70/4 last year. [I am not sure if I had a bad sample of 16-50/2.8/] Did you ever experience any AF refusing to operate like I did with the rental 16-50? (Described in another post.) -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/ * * * Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- 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.
Re: the 16-45 to 17-70 range
Tue Jul 23 15:48:37 EDT 2013 Aahz Maruch wrote: On Tue, Jul 23, 2013, Igor Roshchin wrote: Here is what I wrote previously about my experience with Pentax 17-70/4: (2 years ago:) Also, albeit very subjectively (i.e. without quantitative and systematic tests), I found that 17-70/4 tends to produce somewhat sharper images of the dancers than 16-50/2.8 even at f/4 or f/5.6. The only way I can explain this is by different quality (or speed?) of focusing. I've been puzzled by that myself, and that why I chose to keep 17-70/4 last year. [I am not sure if I had a bad sample of 16-50/2.8/] Did you ever experience any AF refusing to operate like I did with the rental 16-50? (Described in another post.) I don't see your post about your problems with the rental lens (in this thread?) but I vaguely remember you writing earlier about some problems. I did not have any obvious malfunctions with that lens, but it was back in January of 2011, when there were some earlier, presumably with some defects units. Igor -- 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.
