Sigma 28-105 vs. 24-135

[jonathan_rush]

I recently picked up a Sigma 28-105 1:2.8-4 to replace my Sigma 28-105 1:4-5.6 as a walking around/family event

lens. Now I see several Sigma 24-135 1:2.8-4 on Bay for nice prices. Is the extra zoom range worth investing in

this lens? Which lens do you like better for IQ?

 

I've only got a chance to blow off one card of pics with the new lens, so I don't really have a handle on it's

qualities yet, especially since I switched to shooting RAW about the same time.

[acrummey]

Image quality is great but some owners have had communication issues between the lens and dslr body. These problems usually involve menu screens that blink off. I have one that I have used with very few problems on a DL DS K100D Super and K10D. Keep the contacts clean and it will serve you very well.

 

Ira

[miserere_mei]

From what I read in these reviews:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=203

 

the 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 is very soft wide open. I had thought of getting it, but decided not to based on these reviews. I understand that it might not be razor-sharp wide open, but many go as far as to say that it's unusable. There's no point in getting a fast lens if you can't use it at it's maximum aperture.

 

Ira, what's your experience with sharpness?

[DWScott]

I really like this lens. It is quite acceptably sharp wide open, and is a great general purpose lens to shoot family and life.

 

I reviewed it here: http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/showproduct.php?product=426&cat=74

 

The image quality, colour rendering, bokeh and speed are nice. It is a bit heavy to carry around all day, but the range makes it worth it. It's more convenient and has a faster minimum aperture than carrying an 18-55 and 50-200.

[michael_kuhne]

I have it, mainly because I got it incredibly cheap- $99 new a couple of years ago. Don't expect sharp, crisp results

wide open, but if it could do that it could compete with some very expensive zoom lenses- and even they are not at

best wide open. Cons- a bit large and weighty. Pros- very good range for moderate wide to tele- like a 35-200mm on

a film body; the faster aperture allows brighter viewing; good solid build quality with non-rotating front; the lens works

fine on film bodies too.

 

The degree of sharpness at wide apertures will probably vary with subject distance, and same for your Sigma 28-

105mm. If you want a very good, and also very compact 28-105mm, try to find a Pentax FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5, but

as you know, the 28mm provides only a semi-wide view on a DSLR.

[miserere_mei]

Can anyone compare the Sigma 28-135mm to the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8? For example, wide open @75mm, the Tamron is sharp enough for subjects further than 2-3 feet. If the Sigma were close is quality, I would certainly consider it.

[michael_kuhne]

The Tamron 28-75mm is faster, constant aperture, and definitely optically superior to the Sigma 24-135mm, but the Sigma has more range, wide and long.

[ren__purwin]

Stepped down to f8 the 24-135 is a pretty good performer. I have used this lens happily on a istDS. But on my current K20 it perfomrs below par. Complete loss of contrast, virtually unusable. It seems, the 14.6 MP is just way too much for the 24-135. So, if you plan to buy a K20, forget the 24-135. Otherwise it is a good lens, very useful, indeed.