Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD or Pentax DA 16-45 f4

**JimD** · 09-29-2014, 11:12 PM

I've got the Pentax and I'm very pleased with it but I have the chance of the Tamron for a very good price.

Has anyone had any experience with both and would the Tamron be much of an upgrade?

Obviously the Tamron is f2.8 and the Pentax is f4 but that aside is there any merit on splashing out? I've got a Pentax DA 12-24 so the slight difference at the shorter end doesn't worry me.

btnapa · 09-30-2014, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by JimD

I've got the Pentax and I'm very pleased with it but I have the chance of the Tamron for a very good price.

Has anyone had any experience with both and would the Tamron be much of an upgrade?

Obviously the Tamron is f2.8 and the Pentax is f4 but that aside is there any merit on splashing out? I've got a Pentax DA 12-24 so the slight difference at the shorter end doesn't worry me.

I have the 16-45. It is a relatively sharp lens even wide open. It is not pro glass but acceptable in most situations. I shoot nature shots with lots of trees and contrasty situations. I noticed that the 16-45 has all sorts of CA issues... Purple, green you name it. I was able to fix it in Photoshop but it is there. I am used to seeing purple fringing, even on my Limited lenses but green fringing I had never seen before.

I bought a 17-50 Tamron but ended up giving it to my brother to take pics of his kids. I purchased another Tamron from a PF member but it had this weird erratic aperture behavior. He took it back and sent it in for repair. I ran out of funds and did not buy it again. I did some test shots with the one I gave to my brother. It was a little soft at f2.8 but it sharpened up nicely from f4 on.

I tried the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 at a photo show. It was very sharp and it has a better built than the Tamron or the Pentax 16-45.

If you already have the Pentax 12-24, you have a much better lens than the 16-45 or the Tamron 17-50.

redcat · 09-30-2014, 01:27 AM

the sigma 17 50 f2.8 is a great great lens, sharpness even at 2.8 and get better stopped down, Tamron is a good lens also but you might get a front/back focus issue.
Check my photos, they are almost all taken with Sigma 17 50 f2.8

**JimD** · 09-30-2014, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by redcat

the sigma 17 50 f2.8 is a great great lens, sharpness even at 2.8 and get better stopped down, Tamron is a good lens also but you might get a front/back focus issue.
Check my photos, they are almost all taken with Sigma 17 50 f2.8

Thanks for the reply but the offer I've got is for the Tamron. The Sigma will be twice the price.

JinDesu · 09-30-2014, 03:48 AM

Well I wouldn't worry, the Tamron is as sharp as the Sigma - sample variations aside.

I'd get the Tamron 17-50. I've played with the DA 16-45, and it's sharp, but not impressive. It's also not that small.

redcat · 09-30-2014, 05:14 AM

I agree, if you get a good sample then Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a good choice

ZeljkoS · 09-30-2014, 05:53 AM

I'm waiting for the Tamron 17-50 2.8 , ordered it last week. It usually takes 2 - 3 weeks to arrive.... It was $215 , and the add said "Near Mint", with what I hope were actual images of the lens. That was the best option for me. There were some even cheaper, like $180 and $185, but it clearly said they are not in the best condition.

If I had the money, I would probably got Sigma, but... this one will do. I can deal with front or back focusing issues with the debug menu in my K-x.

btnapa · 09-30-2014, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by JimD

Thanks for the reply but the offer I've got is for the Tamron. The Sigma will be twice the price.

One wired feature of the 16-45 is the way the zoom works. Generally with most zoom lenses you zoom out for longer focal lengths. The exact opposite happens on 16-45. So if you shoot a lot of wide angle shots, your lens is extended way out. I thought I will just mention it. It is ok but kinda feels weird. I have no idea why Pentax did that.

**JimD** · 09-30-2014, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by btnapa

I have the 16-45. It is a relatively sharp lens even wide open. It is not pro glass but acceptable in most situations. I shoot nature shots with lots of trees and contrasty situations. I noticed that the 16-45 has all sorts of CA issues... Purple, green you name it. I was able to fix it in Photoshop but it is there. I am used to seeing purple fringing, even on my Limited lenses but green fringing I had never seen before.

I bought a 17-50 Tamron but ended up giving it to my brother to take pics of his kids. I purchased another Tamron from a PF member but it had this weird erratic aperture behavior. He took it back and sent it in for repair. I ran out of funds and did not buy it again. I did some test shots with the one I gave to my brother. It was a little soft at f2.8 but it sharpened up nicely from f4 on.

I tried the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 at a photo show. It was very sharp and it has a better built than the Tamron or the Pentax 16-45.

If you already have the Pentax 12-24, you have a much better lens than the 16-45 or the Tamron 17-50.

Thanks for the reply. My 16-45 appears to be very good example, extremely sharp and doesn't have the CA issues you've experienced. The fringing on mine is probably slightly better than my 12-24 so it's very dependant on the particular sample.

I'm not quite sure what your point about the 12-24 being better than the others is. They're completely different animals so there isn't any comparison.

btnapa · 09-30-2014, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by JimD

Thanks for the reply. My 16-45 appears to be very good example, extremely sharp and doesn't have the CA issues you've experienced. The fringing on mine is probably slightly better than my 12-24 so it's very dependant on the particular sample.

I'm not quite sure what your point about the 12-24 being better than the others is. They're completely different animals so there isn't any comparison.

Yes they are. I meant the glass quality in the 12-24 being better than the other two.

tibbitts · 10-03-2014, 08:01 PM

I have had both.

With the Tamron I've had to use a 10 adjustment on the focus for 2 k5/k5ii bodies (same for both), and maybe could use a little more, but 10 is very close. I've had some intermittent AF connection issues (had to fall back to manual focus) on multiple bodies, including k5 and k200. When the problem occur, bodies basically identify the Tamron as a MF lens, and so don't attempt AF.

The Pentax has the notorious barrel wobble, worst at 16mm (fully extended.) It can effect performance, at least on the higher-mp bodies (didn't notice it at 6mp.)

Optically the Tamron is better, and so far mine has no barrel wobble.

I miss having any kind of focus clutch on the Tamron.

The Tamron seems to have more focus field curvature, at least at the wide-to-medium end, so for many short-to-medium-distance photos where the sensor is mostly parallel to the subject and you need the entire field sharp, you'll want to stop down to at or near diffraction-limited territory. But unless the subject is a brick wall or something similar, you might need to do that anyway if you want to get everything reasonably sharp.

mtux · 10-03-2014, 08:20 PM

One more vote for Tamron.

I heard the 16-45 is sharp from wide open, but my Tamron is really sharp from f/4, so they are on par here, but with Tamron you have one more stop, and it's very usable @ f/2.8 if not as sharp as f/4.
If you have opportunity to test the Tamron, and you found it without focus issues. Buy it by all means.

ZeljkoS · 10-04-2014, 08:03 AM

I got mine yesterday and was shooting all day today with it. Mixed feelings about the performance. Seems to front and back focus randomly, on different focal lengths and F stops. Tried debug menu adjustments for AF, but there was no point because it was really erratic. Finally decided to reset AF settings to default, because it looks like there were least problems that way.

As far as sharpness goes, at 35mm and F5 it's the same as my kit lens ( the first version, not AL II ).

Looks like the strong points are F 2.8 and 1mm extra on the wide end. A bit more contrast on Tamron vs kit lens.

**Ahab** · 10-04-2014, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by JimD

I've got the Pentax and I'm very pleased with it but I have the chance of the Tamron for a very good price.

Has anyone had any experience with both and would the Tamron be much of an upgrade?

Obviously the Tamron is f2.8 and the Pentax is f4 but that aside is there any merit on splashing out? I've got a Pentax DA 12-24 so the slight difference at the shorter end doesn't worry me.

I have both, and yes the Tammy is an upgrade. Also I had the Sigma version first but took it back for the Tamron and glad I did.

formercanuck · 10-04-2014, 05:06 PM

I'm curious about the Tamron as well.
I've seen a few good reviews - here's one from Pentax user Ed

You Tube

Personally, I thought about purchasing that lens from DigitalRev, as its really inexpensive.
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical Lens for Sale

or the 28-75mm f/2.8
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Lens for Sale

09-29-2014, 11:12 PM	#1
JimD Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Newport, South Wales Posts: 187	Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD or Pentax DA 16-45 f4 I've got the Pentax and I'm very pleased with it but I have the chance of the Tamron for a very good price. Has anyone had any experience with both and would the Tamron be much of an upgrade? Obviously the Tamron is f2.8 and the Pentax is f4 but that aside is there any merit on splashing out? I've got a Pentax DA 12-24 so the slight difference at the shorter end doesn't worry me.

10-03-2014, 08:01 PM	#11
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	I have had both. With the Tamron I've had to use a 10 adjustment on the focus for 2 k5/k5ii bodies (same for both), and maybe could use a little more, but 10 is very close. I've had some intermittent AF connection issues (had to fall back to manual focus) on multiple bodies, including k5 and k200. When the problem occur, bodies basically identify the Tamron as a MF lens, and so don't attempt AF. The Pentax has the notorious barrel wobble, worst at 16mm (fully extended.) It can effect performance, at least on the higher-mp bodies (didn't notice it at 6mp.) Optically the Tamron is better, and so far mine has no barrel wobble. I miss having any kind of focus clutch on the Tamron. The Tamron seems to have more focus field curvature, at least at the wide-to-medium end, so for many short-to-medium-distance photos where the sensor is mostly parallel to the subject and you need the entire field sharp, you'll want to stop down to at or near diffraction-limited territory. But unless the subject is a brick wall or something similar, you might need to do that anyway if you want to get everything reasonably sharp. Last edited by tibbitts; 10-04-2014 at 07:46 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Tamron AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR LD Aspherical IF SP (reduced price or trade for D-BG4 Grip)	wullemaha	Sold Items	4	09-03-2014 05:21 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron SP A016 17-50 mm F2.8 LD Di-II XR Aspherical AF IF Lens For Pentax	jmsjames	Sold Items	2	05-20-2014 06:26 AM
TEST: TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm 2.8 XR Di II LD IF vs FULL FRAME	vjacesslav	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	08-27-2012 06:29 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 LD XR Di II SP (PK)	jezza323	Sold Items	7	06-06-2012 03:12 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR LD Di II [IF]	Venturi	Sold Items	3	08-31-2009 08:46 PM

09-30-2014, 12:36 AM	#2
btnapa Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,614	Originally posted by JimD I've got the Pentax and I'm very pleased with it but I have the chance of the Tamron for a very good price. Has anyone had any experience with both and would the Tamron be much of an upgrade? Obviously the Tamron is f2.8 and the Pentax is f4 but that aside is there any merit on splashing out? I've got a Pentax DA 12-24 so the slight difference at the shorter end doesn't worry me. I have the 16-45. It is a relatively sharp lens even wide open. It is not pro glass but acceptable in most situations. I shoot nature shots with lots of trees and contrasty situations. I noticed that the 16-45 has all sorts of CA issues... Purple, green you name it. I was able to fix it in Photoshop but it is there. I am used to seeing purple fringing, even on my Limited lenses but green fringing I had never seen before. I bought a 17-50 Tamron but ended up giving it to my brother to take pics of his kids. I purchased another Tamron from a PF member but it had this weird erratic aperture behavior. He took it back and sent it in for repair. I ran out of funds and did not buy it again. I did some test shots with the one I gave to my brother. It was a little soft at f2.8 but it sharpened up nicely from f4 on. I tried the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 at a photo show. It was very sharp and it has a better built than the Tamron or the Pentax 16-45. If you already have the Pentax 12-24, you have a much better lens than the 16-45 or the Tamron 17-50.

09-30-2014, 01:27 AM	#3
redcat Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Paris Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,939	the sigma 17 50 f2.8 is a great great lens, sharpness even at 2.8 and get better stopped down, Tamron is a good lens also but you might get a front/back focus issue. Check my photos, they are almost all taken with Sigma 17 50 f2.8

09-30-2014, 03:46 AM	#4
JimD Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Newport, South Wales Posts: 187 Original Poster	Originally posted by redcat the sigma 17 50 f2.8 is a great great lens, sharpness even at 2.8 and get better stopped down, Tamron is a good lens also but you might get a front/back focus issue. Check my photos, they are almost all taken with Sigma 17 50 f2.8 Thanks for the reply but the offer I've got is for the Tamron. The Sigma will be twice the price.

09-30-2014, 03:48 AM	#5
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Well I wouldn't worry, the Tamron is as sharp as the Sigma - sample variations aside. I'd get the Tamron 17-50. I've played with the DA 16-45, and it's sharp, but not impressive. It's also not that small.

09-30-2014, 05:14 AM	#6
redcat Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Paris Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,939	I agree, if you get a good sample then Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a good choice

09-30-2014, 05:53 AM	#7
ZeljkoS Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 421	I'm waiting for the Tamron 17-50 2.8 , ordered it last week. It usually takes 2 - 3 weeks to arrive.... It was $215 , and the add said "Near Mint", with what I hope were actual images of the lens. That was the best option for me. There were some even cheaper, like $180 and $185, but it clearly said they are not in the best condition. If I had the money, I would probably got Sigma, but... this one will do. I can deal with front or back focusing issues with the debug menu in my K-x.

09-30-2014, 06:43 AM	#8
btnapa Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,614	Originally posted by JimD Thanks for the reply but the offer I've got is for the Tamron. The Sigma will be twice the price. One wired feature of the 16-45 is the way the zoom works. Generally with most zoom lenses you zoom out for longer focal lengths. The exact opposite happens on 16-45. So if you shoot a lot of wide angle shots, your lens is extended way out. I thought I will just mention it. It is ok but kinda feels weird. I have no idea why Pentax did that.

09-30-2014, 07:02 AM	#9
JimD Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Newport, South Wales Posts: 187 Original Poster	Originally posted by btnapa I have the 16-45. It is a relatively sharp lens even wide open. It is not pro glass but acceptable in most situations. I shoot nature shots with lots of trees and contrasty situations. I noticed that the 16-45 has all sorts of CA issues... Purple, green you name it. I was able to fix it in Photoshop but it is there. I am used to seeing purple fringing, even on my Limited lenses but green fringing I had never seen before. I bought a 17-50 Tamron but ended up giving it to my brother to take pics of his kids. I purchased another Tamron from a PF member but it had this weird erratic aperture behavior. He took it back and sent it in for repair. I ran out of funds and did not buy it again. I did some test shots with the one I gave to my brother. It was a little soft at f2.8 but it sharpened up nicely from f4 on. I tried the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 at a photo show. It was very sharp and it has a better built than the Tamron or the Pentax 16-45. If you already have the Pentax 12-24, you have a much better lens than the 16-45 or the Tamron 17-50. Thanks for the reply. My 16-45 appears to be very good example, extremely sharp and doesn't have the CA issues you've experienced. The fringing on mine is probably slightly better than my 12-24 so it's very dependant on the particular sample. I'm not quite sure what your point about the 12-24 being better than the others is. They're completely different animals so there isn't any comparison.

09-30-2014, 07:48 AM	#10
btnapa Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,614	Originally posted by JimD Thanks for the reply. My 16-45 appears to be very good example, extremely sharp and doesn't have the CA issues you've experienced. The fringing on mine is probably slightly better than my 12-24 so it's very dependant on the particular sample. I'm not quite sure what your point about the 12-24 being better than the others is. They're completely different animals so there isn't any comparison. Yes they are. I meant the glass quality in the 12-24 being better than the other two.

10-03-2014, 08:20 PM	#12
mtux Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: the Netherlands Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,444	One more vote for Tamron. I heard the 16-45 is sharp from wide open, but my Tamron is really sharp from f/4, so they are on par here, but with Tamron you have one more stop, and it's very usable @ f/2.8 if not as sharp as f/4. If you have opportunity to test the Tamron, and you found it without focus issues. Buy it by all means.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2014, 08:03 AM	#13
ZeljkoS Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 421	I got mine yesterday and was shooting all day today with it. Mixed feelings about the performance. Seems to front and back focus randomly, on different focal lengths and F stops. Tried debug menu adjustments for AF, but there was no point because it was really erratic. Finally decided to reset AF settings to default, because it looks like there were least problems that way. As far as sharpness goes, at 35mm and F5 it's the same as my kit lens ( the first version, not AL II ). Looks like the strong points are F 2.8 and 1mm extra on the wide end. A bit more contrast on Tamron vs kit lens.

10-04-2014, 02:53 PM	#14
Ahab Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Arnold, Md. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 762	Originally posted by JimD I've got the Pentax and I'm very pleased with it but I have the chance of the Tamron for a very good price. Has anyone had any experience with both and would the Tamron be much of an upgrade? Obviously the Tamron is f2.8 and the Pentax is f4 but that aside is there any merit on splashing out? I've got a Pentax DA 12-24 so the slight difference at the shorter end doesn't worry me. I have both, and yes the Tammy is an upgrade. Also I had the Sigma version first but took it back for the Tamron and glad I did.