Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 worth the upgrade over DA18-55mm WR?

cabstar · 10-18-2010, 11:46 AM

I have owned the Tamron for over 2 years now. Image quality is very good & af is responsive on the screw drive. I did have to adjust the focus in the menu on my GX20 to get it spot on.

Bad points... Build quality, the front bezel (Correct term??) that covers the front lens element is well known for coming loose. Mine regularly does which means removing the screw cover, having done mine a few times now the cover is difficult to refit.

Dust is also a problem, the lens is not very well sealed when compared to say the DA* range. I do however give mine a lot of hammer at the UK music festivals so maybe with care & attention an enthusiast user may not suffer the same issues.

Have a look in my flickr stream for examples. Most of the wide stuff is shot with that lens.

Pentaxor · 10-18-2010, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by woof

I am not sure how the DA* compares with the Tamron, but the comparison is worth making with the DA 16-45mm.

Each has their negatives. DA16-45 has high CAs, though Pentax now corrects for that in their later bodies, and the Tamron has some serious field curvature. Overall the better MTF50 scores bleong clearly to the DA16-45mm. And in the second hand market it is significantly less expensive. The Tamron, if it is like my 28-75mm has a decent build quality. Some people do not like it. I personally think it is quite nice.

Frankly, the 16-45mm has won me so many ribbons at this point that I just never have really ever bothered to try the Tamron - initially I heard of a LOT of Q/A issues and the one I ALMOST bought was very, very soft. So it's been a bit of a non-starter.

With the addition of a DA 15mm for really serious work (turning red ribbons into blue ones), I am not sure I'll ever go there. The 16-45mm is simply a great walk-around wa to normal lens... and worth a look.

16-45mm

Pentax SMC-DA 16-45mm f/4 ED AL - Review / Test Report - Analysis

17-50mm

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (Canon) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

I am certainly open to the suggestion that this is apples and oranges. Please don't pummel me. I'd prefer to just be enlightened.

woof!

well, let's just say that the Tamron 17-50 is the cheap and fast version of the Pentax DA* 16-50.

I'm sure the 16-45 is an excellent lens and only a tad lower than it's faster DA* counterpart. so in a way, the Tamron 17-50 bridge the gap between the two Pentax lenses. great IQ and speed performance at an affordable price.

Ed n Georgia · 10-18-2010, 12:00 PM

I picked up a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 a couple of months ago. It rarely leave my camera.

stokasz · 10-18-2010, 02:07 PM

Great Picture

Cascade Pass, Adirondacks?

Jewelltrail · 10-20-2010, 06:18 AM

Quote:

stokas: Great Picture

Cascade Pass, Adirondacks?

Thank you for the complement! Yes, that is the location of the shot--you must know the area well.

JoepLX3 · 10-20-2010, 08:52 AM

My friend bought this Tamron for his Canon camera, I notice a 16-45 on the 2nd hand market, so enjoyed the read.
- Any real comparison shots?

Saxplayer1004 · 10-31-2010, 08:30 PM

I was playing with one of the Tamrons on a Nikon the other day. The focus ring was real weird in AF mode. When you went to adjust the ring it made a mechanical grinding. Was just a lack of disconnect between the AF motor and the focus ring. My first and currently only SDM is a 150-500 Sigma, which has a full disconnect between the motor and the ring which is nice. No grabbing at all. Something to think about. the photo quality was great, but the MF thing would bug me... Looking for a 16-50 now, the weather resistance is nice, especially for me being a professional scuba diver and doing a lot of highland game stuff. Rain won't make me worry

Jewelltrail · 10-31-2010, 09:08 PM

To manually focus this Tamron means switching camera body to MF first--takes a second. Like most lenses without a disconnect, you will do damage if you make it MF with the body in AF mode--OOOOOuch for you! However, I have so many MF lenses which were designed for the sole purpose of MF--they are a treat to throw the focus ring to and fro and need no quick shift gimmick.

This Tammy only does AF for me, which is what I bought it to do.

Btw, this Tamron needs no Weather Sealing, just common sense--see, for example: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/120145-tamron-...x-16-50-a.html

Jasvox · 11-01-2010, 02:57 AM

2 different animals, in my opinion. The 18-55WR is a neat little lens if you shoot outdoors and worry about/need a WR lens, but if you do not so much...the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is in a different league in terms of image quality and speed. When I bought my K-7 last year, the first thing I did was sell my 18-55WR since I already had the Tamron.

Jason

Cuchulainn · 11-01-2010, 05:16 AM

I've had the 18-55, 16-45 and the 17-50. Both the 16-45 and 17-50 make fine (and genuine) upgrades from the kit lens. I took some great pictures with the 16-45 and even now miss the extra mm over the tamron on the wide end. The 17-50 is my current normal zoom and I love it. Despite people niggling about the build quality I've found it to be excellent - anyone who has experienced the front element wobble of the 16-45 will recognise that the Tamron is pretty well put together. And f2.8 is the reason I got the lens - apart from the photographic opportunities, it also leads to a beautifully bright image in the viewfinder. And I love the images I get with it!

Jewelltrail · 11-01-2010, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Cuchulainn: ......Anyone who has experienced the front element wobble of the 16-45 will recognise that the Tamron is pretty well put together.

It is not the "front element" which gets loose--it is the filter ring! I have not heard of one case of the glass coming loose on a 17-50mm, but I have heard of the filter ring loosening up.

I agree, the 17-50 is well built an so does Tamron, because they back it with a 6-year Warranty.

Cuchulainn · 11-01-2010, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

It is not the "front element" which gets loose--it is the filter ring! I have not heard of one case of the glass coming loose on a 17-50mm, but I have heard of the filter ring loosening up.

I agree, the 17-50 is well built an so does Tamron, because they back it with a 6-year Warranty.

Read my post again - I'm talking about the 16-45, which does indeed show a wobble of 1-2mm on the whole front lens element. See here for a discussion of this elsewhere.

Jewelltrail · 11-01-2010, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Cuchulainn: Read my post again - I'm talking about the 16-45, which does indeed show a wobble of 1-2mm on the whole front lens element.

Yes, you are correct! I read much too quickly and appreciate your correction. I see so many people mistaking the filter ring wobble of the Tammy 17-50 for the "front element" that I responded too quickly.

Cuchulainn · 11-02-2010, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

Yes, you are correct! I read much too quickly and appreciate your correction. I see so many people mistaking the filter ring wobble of the Tammy 17-50 for the "front element" that I responded too quickly.

No problem! Hope my reply to you didn't come off too negative!

Jodokast96 · 11-02-2010, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

To manually focus this Tamron means switching camera body to MF first--takes a second. Like most lenses without a disconnect, you will do damage if you make it MF with the body in AF mode--OOOOOuch for you! However, I have so many MF lenses which were designed for the sole purpose of MF--they are a treat to throw the focus ring to and fro and need no quick shift gimmick.

This Tammy only does AF for me, which is what I bought it to do.

If AF/MF works anything like on the 70-200, just leave it switch to MF on the lens and switch it on the camera whenever you need it.

10-31-2010, 09:08 PM	#23
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	To manually focus this Tamron means switching camera body to MF first--takes a second. Like most lenses without a disconnect, you will do damage if you make it MF with the body in AF mode--OOOOOuch for you! However, I have so many MF lenses which were designed for the sole purpose of MF--they are a treat to throw the focus ring to and fro and need no quick shift gimmick. This Tammy only does AF for me, which is what I bought it to do. Btw, this Tamron needs no Weather Sealing, just common sense--see, for example: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/120145-tamron-...x-16-50-a.html Last edited by Jewelltrail; 10-31-2010 at 09:18 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tamron 17-50mm .. is it REALLY worth it?	Nightwings	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	36	08-17-2010 06:35 AM
The K 55mm 1:1.8 - worth having with the M 50mm 1:1.7?	Jonathan Mac	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	06-01-2010 10:30 AM
DA*16-50 worth buying as replacement of DA18-55mm WR?	Leo Miyanaga	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	10-10-2009 12:49 AM
Upgrade to Tamron 17-50mm from kit 18-55mm: worth the investment?	virgilr	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	09-04-2009 07:33 AM
For Sale - Sold: K10d, DA18-55mm, DA50-200mm, Tamron 1.4x tc, DA10-17mm	ssyli	Sold Items	7	01-19-2009 05:05 PM

10-18-2010, 11:46 AM	#16
cabstar Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Grimsby UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 224	I have owned the Tamron for over 2 years now. Image quality is very good & af is responsive on the screw drive. I did have to adjust the focus in the menu on my GX20 to get it spot on. Bad points... Build quality, the front bezel (Correct term??) that covers the front lens element is well known for coming loose. Mine regularly does which means removing the screw cover, having done mine a few times now the cover is difficult to refit. Dust is also a problem, the lens is not very well sealed when compared to say the DA* range. I do however give mine a lot of hammer at the UK music festivals so maybe with care & attention an enthusiast user may not suffer the same issues. Have a look in my flickr stream for examples. Most of the wide stuff is shot with that lens.

10-18-2010, 11:58 AM	#17
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by woof I am not sure how the DA* compares with the Tamron, but the comparison is worth making with the DA 16-45mm. Each has their negatives. DA16-45 has high CAs, though Pentax now corrects for that in their later bodies, and the Tamron has some serious field curvature. Overall the better MTF50 scores bleong clearly to the DA16-45mm. And in the second hand market it is significantly less expensive. The Tamron, if it is like my 28-75mm has a decent build quality. Some people do not like it. I personally think it is quite nice. Frankly, the 16-45mm has won me so many ribbons at this point that I just never have really ever bothered to try the Tamron - initially I heard of a LOT of Q/A issues and the one I ALMOST bought was very, very soft. So it's been a bit of a non-starter. With the addition of a DA 15mm for really serious work (turning red ribbons into blue ones), I am not sure I'll ever go there. The 16-45mm is simply a great walk-around wa to normal lens... and worth a look. 16-45mm Pentax SMC-DA 16-45mm f/4 ED AL - Review / Test Report - Analysis 17-50mm Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (Canon) - Review / Test Report - Analysis I am certainly open to the suggestion that this is apples and oranges. Please don't pummel me. I'd prefer to just be enlightened. woof! well, let's just say that the Tamron 17-50 is the cheap and fast version of the Pentax DA* 16-50. I'm sure the 16-45 is an excellent lens and only a tad lower than it's faster DA* counterpart. so in a way, the Tamron 17-50 bridge the gap between the two Pentax lenses. great IQ and speed performance at an affordable price.

10-18-2010, 12:00 PM	#18
Ed n Georgia Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Georgia Posts: 940	I picked up a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 a couple of months ago. It rarely leave my camera.

10-18-2010, 02:07 PM	#19
stokasz New Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Western New York Photos: Albums Posts: 132	Great Picture Cascade Pass, Adirondacks?

10-20-2010, 06:18 AM	#20
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: stokas: Great Picture Cascade Pass, Adirondacks? Thank you for the complement! Yes, that is the location of the shot--you must know the area well.

10-20-2010, 08:52 AM	#21
JoepLX3 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 518	My friend bought this Tamron for his Canon camera, I notice a 16-45 on the 2nd hand market, so enjoyed the read. - Any real comparison shots?

10-31-2010, 08:30 PM	#22
Saxplayer1004 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 179	I was playing with one of the Tamrons on a Nikon the other day. The focus ring was real weird in AF mode. When you went to adjust the ring it made a mechanical grinding. Was just a lack of disconnect between the AF motor and the focus ring. My first and currently only SDM is a 150-500 Sigma, which has a full disconnect between the motor and the ring which is nice. No grabbing at all. Something to think about. the photo quality was great, but the MF thing would bug me... Looking for a 16-50 now, the weather resistance is nice, especially for me being a professional scuba diver and doing a lot of highland game stuff. Rain won't make me worry

11-01-2010, 02:57 AM	#24
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	2 different animals, in my opinion. The 18-55WR is a neat little lens if you shoot outdoors and worry about/need a WR lens, but if you do not so much...the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is in a different league in terms of image quality and speed. When I bought my K-7 last year, the first thing I did was sell my 18-55WR since I already had the Tamron. Jason

11-01-2010, 05:16 AM	#25
Cuchulainn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 153	I've had the 18-55, 16-45 and the 17-50. Both the 16-45 and 17-50 make fine (and genuine) upgrades from the kit lens. I took some great pictures with the 16-45 and even now miss the extra mm over the tamron on the wide end. The 17-50 is my current normal zoom and I love it. Despite people niggling about the build quality I've found it to be excellent - anyone who has experienced the front element wobble of the 16-45 will recognise that the Tamron is pretty well put together. And f2.8 is the reason I got the lens - apart from the photographic opportunities, it also leads to a beautifully bright image in the viewfinder. And I love the images I get with it!

11-01-2010, 08:36 AM	#26
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Cuchulainn: ......Anyone who has experienced the front element wobble of the 16-45 will recognise that the Tamron is pretty well put together. It is not the "front element" which gets loose--it is the filter ring! I have not heard of one case of the glass coming loose on a 17-50mm, but I have heard of the filter ring loosening up. I agree, the 17-50 is well built an so does Tamron, because they back it with a 6-year Warranty.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-01-2010, 08:40 AM	#27
Cuchulainn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 153	Originally posted by Jewelltrail It is not the "front element" which gets loose--it is the filter ring! I have not heard of one case of the glass coming loose on a 17-50mm, but I have heard of the filter ring loosening up. I agree, the 17-50 is well built an so does Tamron, because they back it with a 6-year Warranty. Read my post again - I'm talking about the 16-45, which does indeed show a wobble of 1-2mm on the whole front lens element. See here for a discussion of this elsewhere.

11-01-2010, 11:53 AM	#28
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Cuchulainn: Read my post again - I'm talking about the 16-45, which does indeed show a wobble of 1-2mm on the whole front lens element. Yes, you are correct! I read much too quickly and appreciate your correction. I see so many people mistaking the filter ring wobble of the Tammy 17-50 for the "front element" that I responded too quickly.

11-02-2010, 02:50 AM	#29
Cuchulainn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 153	Originally posted by Jewelltrail Yes, you are correct! I read much too quickly and appreciate your correction. I see so many people mistaking the filter ring wobble of the Tammy 17-50 for the "front element" that I responded too quickly. No problem! Hope my reply to you didn't come off too negative!

11-02-2010, 04:51 AM	#30
Jodokast96 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Erial, NJ USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,134	Originally posted by Jewelltrail To manually focus this Tamron means switching camera body to MF first--takes a second. Like most lenses without a disconnect, you will do damage if you make it MF with the body in AF mode--OOOOOuch for you! However, I have so many MF lenses which were designed for the sole purpose of MF--they are a treat to throw the focus ring to and fro and need no quick shift gimmick. This Tammy only does AF for me, which is what I bought it to do. If AF/MF works anything like on the 70-200, just leave it switch to MF on the lens and switch it on the camera whenever you need it.