Pentax 50-135 Vs Sigma 50-150

[mel_unruh]

<p>Greetings,<br>

Does anyone have any real world experience with BOTH of these lenses? Trying to seperate the fact from fiction. This would be more for outdoor senior portraits and possibly some events. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Mel</p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>I'm not a zoom guy, but I've also taken an interest in these two lenses. I believe several of ya'll have the Pentax, but does anyone here have the Sig?</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>the pentax is one of the very best lenses I have used. not really sure what else to add. the sigma might be fine as well, but i'm doubtful it is better.</p>

[ukhov]

<p>SIGMA was developed in 80 s and to present days 50-150 glass for right object photography (not for portrets or wedings to" send on Mars") so is pentax DA 50-135.Well, in some lens construction and position of elements ,like 50-150 aplication of DA will be some thing extra.How you going to compare without knowing how lens build is dame -good thing to ask in 2010???</p>

[jgredline]

<p>When I made my list of Pentax lenses to sell, I could not part with 50-135. I have no idea how the sigma is, but the 50-135 is flat amazing. These days I shoot mostly primes and this lens is prime quality.</p>

[trevor_peterson2]

<p>any of y'all know if they have replaced the plastic widget that was causing so many tears?</p>

[mel_unruh]

<p>Thanks. I was leaning to the 50-150 as the reviews of that unit were quite positive. However, version two seems to have less steller results (build quality issues). I need to read some other reviews to see if this how bad the issue really is. Otherwise, I'm goin' with the Pentax.</p>

<p>Mel</p>

[dogbert]

<p>The Sigma looks to have true ring HSM, which should make its focus a bit quicker and more rugged. Pentax uses micro motors for their SDM as far as I know.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Geoff,</p>

<p>Just a note, Sigma HSM is known to fail pretty frequently. Also, Canon has had issues with USM motors failing in certain lenses. The fact is lens based motors are more prone to failure, which is ironic since we are in an era of obsolete camera bodies every 2 years, we moved a key component to the item that doesn't obsolete, the lens.</p>

<p>I'm wondering just how out of proportion the SDM failures have been made. Afterall, sometimes things take on a life of their own.</p>

<p>Case in point, I have a 1st generation 50-135 which I actually pre-ordered. I've used it for several years without any failures. If all SDM lenses failed, mine would already be dead. So clearly not all Pentax SDMs die an early death.</p>

<p>That said, I agree, I have no idea why Pentax went the SDM/screw drive hybrid. At the time the only non SDM camera bodies were older 6MP offerings. Even the K100D Super was SDM capable. Furthermore, Pentax refuses to put a screw drive override option into the custom menus of current firmware so people with SDM lenses that fail with the internal motor can simply switch to the screw drive body motor.</p>

[marius_mirea]

<blockquote>

<p>Furthermore, Pentax refuses to put a screw drive override option into the custom menus of current firmware so people with SDM lenses that fail with the internal motor can simply switch to the screw drive body motor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is beyond my understanding too... Having a sh 50-135mm, I have sold it just to get away from the "sword above one's head" feeling. And because I wanted to recycle the funds to a set of primes, but undoubtedly I might have condidered keeping it if the option of dual AF SDM/screwdrive would have been available.</p>

[jgredline]

<blockquote>

<p>Pentax refuses to put a screw drive override option into the custom menus of current firmware so people with SDM lenses that fail with the internal motor can simply switch to the screw drive body motor.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Same Here. If Pentax did this, they would have avoided the trash talk and sold more lenses. True or not, people who where on the fence as to buy an SDM lens would most likely have passed.If we had a screw drive option (that is faster anyway), then it would have become a none issue.</p>

<p>At one time I had all but one of the SDM lenses and I never had a single problem, but that I believe was because I always bought them when they first came out. I also think the SDM failures where greatly exaggerated like most things on the web. I hear of the motors failing on Canikon just as much. Those numbers are likely greater because there is more of them. </p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>Wasn't there supposed to be a firmware hack that allows the SDM/Screw to have a switch? I know the K10 has been hacked a ton. I know if I could code I'd be all about trying to reverse engineer it.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>The Canon USM lens that has the highest reputation for motor failure is the 50 f1.4 USM, which uses a micro USM motor, with FTM focussing override, the same as Pentax. It is the only Canon lens that uses this design. The others being either true ring USM or micro USM (without FTM focus override) or old arc drive motors.<br>

In general Canon and Nikon ring USMs are regarded as very reliable. While there is the occaisional failure, these brands sell far more lenses than Pentax and they tend to be used by pros who abuse their lenses much more.<br>

Anyway, I was not having a dig at Pentax SDM reliability. Merely pointing out that true ring USM motors tend to focus faster, quieter, and have a proper manual override, rather than a tricked up one that goes with micromotor design.</p>

[wtlwdwgn]

<p>I have the DA* 50-135 and as said it is a superb lens and one of my favorites. I don't have experience with the Sigma 50-150 but I do with the older 100-300 in both Pentax and Canon mounts. Although not silent the focus speed and lock on are pretty good on the Pentax. The focus speed and lock on are outstanding on my old Canon 1D Mk II N. It's nearly as good as the Canon EF 400 ƒ/4L which is reputed to be the fastest and best focusing lens in the Canon lineup. Just my ¢¢.</p>