16-45mm f4 and FA43 1.9 Or just the Tamron 17-50 2.8

rustynail925 · 06-19-2010, 10:04 AM

Which do you think is better
16-45mm f4 and FA43 1.9
Or just the Tamron 17-50 2.8

Fabian · 06-19-2010, 10:50 AM

The 17-50 is really a great lens. But the handling isn't excellent. Plasticky (mine has got itself a crack), sloppy focus ring which is also a bit short, meaning that the slightest adjustment changes focus quite dramatically. The focus ring isn't damped, while the zoom ring is very damped. Feels a bit odd to me. But it sure delivers when it comes to the images.

Eagle_Friends · 06-19-2010, 11:11 AM

Well the FA 43 is one of the trinity of Pentax lenses, so neither the Tamron or the 16-45 can match in pure photo quality.

The Tamron is a great lens though, but again, I agree with Fabian and did not totally go for the feel of the lens. My friend had a Sony version and although it takes great photos, just never liked holding the thing. And I'm a big fan of the 16-45... so I would stick with the first option.

jimr-pdx · 06-19-2010, 11:12 AM

I haven't played with my gear for long, but the 16-45 has been most satisfying; I will take 1mm wide for a 5mm 'fee' at the long end -- but extra-low light isn't my style so f/4 is fine. In a former life I used Sigma's 17-70 and thought it was amazing, just right for what I do, but the 16-45 gets just about as close + I have uses for 16mm that keep me from missing the Sigma.

I plan to go speedier than f/2 at 50mm but for now it's plenty fast enough. Sure wish I hadn't sold the M40/2.8 pancake 2 years ago

**montman** · 06-19-2010, 12:13 PM

What are you shooting? For portraits, the FA 43 1.9 hands down. If you are thinking landscape the FA43 is not the weapon of choice, don’t get me wrong you could make it work but I would go wider.

rustynail925 · 06-19-2010, 12:31 PM

landscapes and portraits
..the DA16-45 for landscapes and
FA43 for portraits. ive been trying to get the FA43 for some time now..
and ive been wondering the Tamron 17-50 can give me a bit of both lenses
its 1mm short on wide end and just a stop slower than the FA43
you save $ and changing lenses..

rustynail925 · 06-19-2010, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Fabian

The 17-50 is really a great lens. But the handling isn't excellent. Plasticky (mine has got itself a crack), sloppy focus ring which is also a bit short, meaning that the slightest adjustment changes focus quite dramatically. The focus ring isn't damped, while the zoom ring is very damped. Feels a bit odd to me. But it sure delivers when it comes to the images.

sorry but what do u mean by the zoom ring is very damped?

rustynail925 · 06-19-2010, 12:34 PM

I also notice that the Tamron has a lock what is it for?

Laurentiu Cristofor · 06-19-2010, 12:59 PM

The zoom ring moves smoothly but puts more resistance than any other zooming ring I've used. I like it, because I can set it at a focal length and I don't have to worry about it sliding away.

The lock is kind of funny in view of how tight the zooming ring is. It's supposed to help prevent zoom creep, but it's not really necessary. I think this is mentioned in the photozone review as well.

Which combo you'd prefer would be a matter of personal preference, but in the long run, a constant 2.8 zoom in this range is preferable to a constant 4 zoom. Just think of how much money you would spend on 2.8 primes to cover 17, 20, 24, 28, 35mm and whether they'd be as sharp as the Tamron is.

The focusing ring has little throw, but I found it doesn't bother me with manual focusing at 50mm.

The only thing I noticed about the Tamron is that if I placed a CPL over a UV, I get vignetting. It only handles one filter well. I know some people don't care about filters, but I use a UV with all new lenses and I don't bother taking it off when I use a CPL - with the Tamron, I got this problem.

Eagle_Friends · 06-19-2010, 01:07 PM

ever considered the DA 40 instead of the FA 43? It is a super sharp, super fast, and relatively cheap prime.

**montman** · 06-19-2010, 01:20 PM

With the 17-50 2.8 you should get some decent portraits but they won' compare to the ones you could get with the 43 1.9. You could just get the 17-50 2.8 and then buy the 50 F2 M thats for sale in the market right now for $20. I have one and it works amazing,minus not having auto focus.

theperception2008 · 06-19-2010, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by rustynail925

Which do you think is better
16-45mm f4 and FA43 1.9
Or just the Tamron 17-50 2.8

I've had the Tamron 17-50 2.8 before on a Gx-20 and I thought it was a good lens. Now my second time around, with getting my lens collection started, I've been sticking to primes pretty much except for my acquisition of the DA 18-55 AL II and just recently the DA 16-45. Now my personal opinion is that Pentax is known for it's prime lenses. Nikon and Canon have great zoom lenses. One thing to keep in mind is that while many zooms will approach prime lens image quality, but they will not be as sharp. If I could only keep only one lens I would keep my FA 77. With that being said, if faced with the same decision, would go the 16-45 and FA 43 Ltd. route. The FA 43 really isn't replaceable with a zoom, the colors and sharpness aren't a match for the rendition. The build quality of the 16-45 is nice and it's a nice, sharp, wide lens. That's just my humble opinion :-)

robjmitchell · 06-19-2010, 04:33 PM

Have you considered 2.8zoom in the 24/28-70 range, thats when you really need the speed, not at 17mm. Otherwise go for the 43ltd, its just awesome. Mind you, despite the fact i prefer primes over zooms my sigma 17-70 is still my most used lens, just due to the versatility.

rustynail925 · 06-20-2010, 03:44 AM

The DA40 is only 2.8 ..
Im thinking of using the 16-45 for landscapes and when shooting portraits ill use the 43 1.9
The 24-70 is not wide enough since im shooting moslty at 16mm..
I was considering the Tammy because its just one stop slower than the FA43..

rockmaster1964 · 06-21-2010, 09:45 AM

I would go with the DA16-45mm and the FA 43mm. I like mine.

06-19-2010, 10:04 AM	#1
rustynail925 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,551	16-45mm f4 and FA43 1.9 Or just the Tamron 17-50 2.8 Which do you think is better 16-45mm f4 and FA43 1.9 Or just the Tamron 17-50 2.8

06-19-2010, 11:12 AM	#4
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	happy with 16-45 + 50/2 I haven't played with my gear for long, but the 16-45 has been most satisfying; I will take 1mm wide for a 5mm 'fee' at the long end -- but extra-low light isn't my style so f/4 is fine. In a former life I used Sigma's 17-70 and thought it was amazing, just right for what I do, but the 16-45 gets just about as close + I have uses for 16mm that keep me from missing the Sigma. I plan to go speedier than f/2 at 50mm but for now it's plenty fast enough. Sure wish I hadn't sold the M40/2.8 pancake 2 years ago

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K10D, DA 16-45mm, DA 18-55mm, Tamron 75-300mm (US, CA)	awsutter	Sold Items	4	04-21-2010 08:26 AM
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 a worthy upgrade from the DA 16-45mm f4?	Ben Hunt	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	04-20-2010 06:26 AM
Pentax 16-45mm vs. Tamron 17-50mm	causey	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	05-30-2009 01:56 AM
DA 16-45mm VS Tamron 17-50mm/2.8	robcap13	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	03-11-2009 09:44 AM

06-19-2010, 10:50 AM	#2
Fabian Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 49	The 17-50 is really a great lens. But the handling isn't excellent. Plasticky (mine has got itself a crack), sloppy focus ring which is also a bit short, meaning that the slightest adjustment changes focus quite dramatically. The focus ring isn't damped, while the zoom ring is very damped. Feels a bit odd to me. But it sure delivers when it comes to the images.

06-19-2010, 11:11 AM	#3
Eagle_Friends Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 971	Well the FA 43 is one of the trinity of Pentax lenses, so neither the Tamron or the 16-45 can match in pure photo quality. The Tamron is a great lens though, but again, I agree with Fabian and did not totally go for the feel of the lens. My friend had a Sony version and although it takes great photos, just never liked holding the thing. And I'm a big fan of the 16-45... so I would stick with the first option.

06-19-2010, 12:13 PM	#5
montman Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Kansas City Photos: Gallery Posts: 576	What are you shooting? For portraits, the FA 43 1.9 hands down. If you are thinking landscape the FA43 is not the weapon of choice, don’t get me wrong you could make it work but I would go wider.

06-19-2010, 12:31 PM	#6
rustynail925 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,551 Original Poster	landscapes and portraits ..the DA16-45 for landscapes and FA43 for portraits. ive been trying to get the FA43 for some time now.. and ive been wondering the Tamron 17-50 can give me a bit of both lenses its 1mm short on wide end and just a stop slower than the FA43 you save $ and changing lenses..

06-19-2010, 12:33 PM	#7
rustynail925 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,551 Original Poster	Originally posted by Fabian The 17-50 is really a great lens. But the handling isn't excellent. Plasticky (mine has got itself a crack), sloppy focus ring which is also a bit short, meaning that the slightest adjustment changes focus quite dramatically. The focus ring isn't damped, while the zoom ring is very damped. Feels a bit odd to me. But it sure delivers when it comes to the images. sorry but what do u mean by the zoom ring is very damped?

06-19-2010, 12:34 PM	#8
rustynail925 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,551 Original Poster	I also notice that the Tamron has a lock what is it for?

06-19-2010, 12:59 PM	#9
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	The zoom ring moves smoothly but puts more resistance than any other zooming ring I've used. I like it, because I can set it at a focal length and I don't have to worry about it sliding away. The lock is kind of funny in view of how tight the zooming ring is. It's supposed to help prevent zoom creep, but it's not really necessary. I think this is mentioned in the photozone review as well. Which combo you'd prefer would be a matter of personal preference, but in the long run, a constant 2.8 zoom in this range is preferable to a constant 4 zoom. Just think of how much money you would spend on 2.8 primes to cover 17, 20, 24, 28, 35mm and whether they'd be as sharp as the Tamron is. The focusing ring has little throw, but I found it doesn't bother me with manual focusing at 50mm. The only thing I noticed about the Tamron is that if I placed a CPL over a UV, I get vignetting. It only handles one filter well. I know some people don't care about filters, but I use a UV with all new lenses and I don't bother taking it off when I use a CPL - with the Tamron, I got this problem.

06-19-2010, 01:07 PM	#10
Eagle_Friends Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 971	ever considered the DA 40 instead of the FA 43? It is a super sharp, super fast, and relatively cheap prime.

06-19-2010, 01:20 PM	#11
montman Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Kansas City Photos: Gallery Posts: 576	With the 17-50 2.8 you should get some decent portraits but they won' compare to the ones you could get with the 43 1.9. You could just get the 17-50 2.8 and then buy the 50 F2 M thats for sale in the market right now for $20. I have one and it works amazing,minus not having auto focus.

06-19-2010, 03:52 PM	#12
theperception2008 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Łódź, Poland and Riverside, California, U.S.A Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 488	Originally posted by rustynail925 Which do you think is better 16-45mm f4 and FA43 1.9 Or just the Tamron 17-50 2.8 I've had the Tamron 17-50 2.8 before on a Gx-20 and I thought it was a good lens. Now my second time around, with getting my lens collection started, I've been sticking to primes pretty much except for my acquisition of the DA 18-55 AL II and just recently the DA 16-45. Now my personal opinion is that Pentax is known for it's prime lenses. Nikon and Canon have great zoom lenses. One thing to keep in mind is that while many zooms will approach prime lens image quality, but they will not be as sharp. If I could only keep only one lens I would keep my FA 77. With that being said, if faced with the same decision, would go the 16-45 and FA 43 Ltd. route. The FA 43 really isn't replaceable with a zoom, the colors and sharpness aren't a match for the rendition. The build quality of the 16-45 is nice and it's a nice, sharp, wide lens. That's just my humble opinion :-)

06-19-2010, 04:33 PM	#13
robjmitchell Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne Aus Posts: 1,776	Have you considered 2.8zoom in the 24/28-70 range, thats when you really need the speed, not at 17mm. Otherwise go for the 43ltd, its just awesome. Mind you, despite the fact i prefer primes over zooms my sigma 17-70 is still my most used lens, just due to the versatility.

06-20-2010, 03:44 AM	#14
rustynail925 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,551 Original Poster	The DA40 is only 2.8 .. Im thinking of using the 16-45 for landscapes and when shooting portraits ill use the 43 1.9 The 24-70 is not wide enough since im shooting moslty at 16mm.. I was considering the Tammy because its just one stop slower than the FA43..

06-21-2010, 09:45 AM	#15
rockmaster1964 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Frisco Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 382	I would go with the DA16-45mm and the FA 43mm. I like mine.