16-45mm vs 17-50mm vs 17-70mm

bjornzzz · 10-26-2010, 09:08 PM

Hey all, so I've decided to splurge on some new lenses, and am stuck between these choices, being the Pentax 16-45mm, Tamron 17-50mm and Sigma 17-70mm. Well not so much stuck now, as I already got the Tamron 17-50mm and it's on the way. I already have the FA 50mm F1.4, but still have the urge to splurge. I was actually thinking if I should just get all three. Or would I be better off staying with the 17-50mm, and maybe getting a Pentax 55mm-300mm?

jimr-pdx · 10-26-2010, 10:16 PM

I had very much expected to buy a 17-70 Sigma when I shifted from Sony to Pentax - yet once I saw and read about it, I went 16-45. In theory this saves me a wide-angle since I had a 14mm with the Alpha, and going with 16 is sufficient (for now). As to versatility they're a draw in close focusing, and I just crop to make up for the 45 vs. 70mm long end. As to the 17-50: I talked myself out of that, reasoning my 50mm would do the job that either of the others couldn't do. It's universally praised though, so you should be fine. And indeed, whatever your 1st choice the 55-300 is an excellent 2nd - unless you need an f/2.8 tele, it will do whatever you ask of it & do it well.

Smeggypants · 10-26-2010, 10:24 PM

Its a bit pointless getting all three.

I have the Sigma 17-70 and it's just as good as the pentax 16-45. i'd upgrade to the Da* 16-50 if anything.

If you wanna splurge get a DA* 50-135. I haven't seen a Pentax zoom with better IQ. Stunning! look up the 50-135 club thread here if want proof

bjornzzz · 10-26-2010, 10:49 PM

How about the sigma 70-200mm? I've been looking at that one and it sure has struck me..

Jewelltrail · 10-26-2010, 11:20 PM

I can't think of many good reasons why you would want to cover roughly the same zoom range with another zoom. The 55-300 is a good idea though.

BTW, nice choice with the Tamron 17-50mm--I love mine.

Pentaxor · 10-26-2010, 11:33 PM

it would be the 17-50, FA50/1.4 and DA55-300.

as far as IQ is concerned, here is a comparative shot between an outstanding 135mm prime lens against the DA55-300 at 135mm.

FA135 at f4.5

DA55-300 at 135/f4.5

it's up to you if the difference matters or if you see that the DA55-300 is more than capable of producing very good to excellent results.

ybo1 · 10-27-2010, 01:02 AM

If you check Photozone, you'll see that the Tamron 70-300 stacks well against the 55-300, for about less than half the price ( + Macro capability). In good light, mine is tack sharp at 300mm...

simico · 10-27-2010, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by bjornzzz

Or would I be better off staying with the 17-50mm, and maybe getting a Pentax 55mm-300mm?

Yes, that sounds good.
17-50 is a fine lens, wouldn't make much sense to have 16-45 and/or 17-70 beside it.

bjornzzz · 10-27-2010, 02:06 AM

Yea I'm taking the money from 16-45 and 17-70 and am purchasing a sigma 70-200mm F2.8

Yay or Nay?

bdery · 10-27-2010, 05:18 AM

All three are good, and the benefits of each are pretty obvious. The Sigma is clearly the most versatile of the three (the reason I got it) but since you already ordered the 17-50, I'd say use it, experiment, then decide if you want other aspects covered by other lenses.

Cuchulainn · 10-27-2010, 06:21 AM

Also keep an eye out for a Sigma 50-150mm f2.8. They are being discontinued, so you can pick up an excellent lens at a fantastic price at the moment.

DanielT74 · 10-27-2010, 06:36 AM

I've had the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and now have Pentax 17-70/4. Had some focusing problems with the Tamron but also some very good shots. Absolutely love the Pentax. Unless you need the speed, it's a great lens (at least for an amateur like me).

GerryL · 10-27-2010, 08:39 AM

I also have the same dilemma and would also want to upgrade.
I like the 16mm of the Pentax but the f:4 is dissuades me.
I like the versatility of the Sigma with its extra reach for a one-lens-lug-around all around..but there are so many Tamron reviews saying that it is good or a tad better than the Sigma?
Can anyone still add more fuel to this fire 'coz I'm kind torn too!

I know this is not my thread but I know there are others out there on the same boat and would like to know about real experiences with these lenses.

bjornzzz · 10-27-2010, 07:27 PM

Cheers for the replies guys! Gerry, I would absolute love for people to join in with this discussion, as I've seen plenty of threads on other forums regarding this dilemma. But I reckon the Tamron 17-50mm would be the best choice for me, as I went ahead and got the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 at a ridiculously low price. But as I've read on plenty of other forums, it all comes down to what you want, a stop faster on the Tamron 17-50, or the extra zoom on the Sigma 17-70mm.

MickB · 10-27-2010, 10:31 PM

How much did you get the 70-200mm for if you don't mind me asking. I'm looking at picking one up myself.

10-26-2010, 09:08 PM	#1
bjornzzz New Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 16	16-45mm vs 17-50mm vs 17-70mm Hey all, so I've decided to splurge on some new lenses, and am stuck between these choices, being the Pentax 16-45mm, Tamron 17-50mm and Sigma 17-70mm. Well not so much stuck now, as I already got the Tamron 17-50mm and it's on the way. I already have the FA 50mm F1.4, but still have the urge to splurge. I was actually thinking if I should just get all three. Or would I be better off staying with the 17-50mm, and maybe getting a Pentax 55mm-300mm?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA 16-45mm vs. DA 17-70mm	raymeedc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	05-08-2010 08:25 AM
16-45mm or 17-70mm	Uncle_dad	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	01-25-2010 10:52 AM
16-45mm or 16-50mm or 17-70mm ?	Neducati	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	12-08-2008 12:20 PM
sigma DC 17-70mm vs. Pentax DA 16-45mm	Edvinas	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	11-19-2006 10:48 PM

10-26-2010, 10:16 PM	#2
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	I had very much expected to buy a 17-70 Sigma when I shifted from Sony to Pentax - yet once I saw and read about it, I went 16-45. In theory this saves me a wide-angle since I had a 14mm with the Alpha, and going with 16 is sufficient (for now). As to versatility they're a draw in close focusing, and I just crop to make up for the 45 vs. 70mm long end. As to the 17-50: I talked myself out of that, reasoning my 50mm would do the job that either of the others couldn't do. It's universally praised though, so you should be fine. And indeed, whatever your 1st choice the 55-300 is an excellent 2nd - unless you need an f/2.8 tele, it will do whatever you ask of it & do it well.

10-26-2010, 10:24 PM	#3
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Its a bit pointless getting all three. I have the Sigma 17-70 and it's just as good as the pentax 16-45. i'd upgrade to the Da* 16-50 if anything. If you wanna splurge get a DA* 50-135. I haven't seen a Pentax zoom with better IQ. Stunning! look up the 50-135 club thread here if want proof

10-26-2010, 10:49 PM	#4
bjornzzz New Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 16 Original Poster	How about the sigma 70-200mm? I've been looking at that one and it sure has struck me..

10-26-2010, 11:20 PM	#5
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	I can't think of many good reasons why you would want to cover roughly the same zoom range with another zoom. The 55-300 is a good idea though. BTW, nice choice with the Tamron 17-50mm--I love mine.

10-26-2010, 11:33 PM	#6
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	it would be the 17-50, FA50/1.4 and DA55-300. as far as IQ is concerned, here is a comparative shot between an outstanding 135mm prime lens against the DA55-300 at 135mm. FA135 at f4.5 DA55-300 at 135/f4.5 it's up to you if the difference matters or if you see that the DA55-300 is more than capable of producing very good to excellent results.

10-27-2010, 01:02 AM	#7
ybo1 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 135	If you check Photozone, you'll see that the Tamron 70-300 stacks well against the 55-300, for about less than half the price ( + Macro capability). In good light, mine is tack sharp at 300mm...

10-27-2010, 01:12 AM	#8
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	Originally posted by bjornzzz Or would I be better off staying with the 17-50mm, and maybe getting a Pentax 55mm-300mm? Yes, that sounds good. 17-50 is a fine lens, wouldn't make much sense to have 16-45 and/or 17-70 beside it.

10-27-2010, 02:06 AM	#9
bjornzzz New Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 16 Original Poster	Yea I'm taking the money from 16-45 and 17-70 and am purchasing a sigma 70-200mm F2.8 Yay or Nay?

10-27-2010, 05:18 AM	#10
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,360	All three are good, and the benefits of each are pretty obvious. The Sigma is clearly the most versatile of the three (the reason I got it) but since you already ordered the 17-50, I'd say use it, experiment, then decide if you want other aspects covered by other lenses.

10-27-2010, 06:21 AM	#11
Cuchulainn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 153	Also keep an eye out for a Sigma 50-150mm f2.8. They are being discontinued, so you can pick up an excellent lens at a fantastic price at the moment.

10-27-2010, 06:36 AM	#12
DanielT74 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,377	I've had the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and now have Pentax 17-70/4. Had some focusing problems with the Tamron but also some very good shots. Absolutely love the Pentax. Unless you need the speed, it's a great lens (at least for an amateur like me).

10-27-2010, 08:39 AM	#13
GerryL Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: CA Posts: 2,731	I also have the same dilemma and would also want to upgrade. I like the 16mm of the Pentax but the f:4 is dissuades me. I like the versatility of the Sigma with its extra reach for a one-lens-lug-around all around..but there are so many Tamron reviews saying that it is good or a tad better than the Sigma? Can anyone still add more fuel to this fire 'coz I'm kind torn too! I know this is not my thread but I know there are others out there on the same boat and would like to know about real experiences with these lenses.

10-27-2010, 07:27 PM	#14
bjornzzz New Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 16 Original Poster	Cheers for the replies guys! Gerry, I would absolute love for people to join in with this discussion, as I've seen plenty of threads on other forums regarding this dilemma. But I reckon the Tamron 17-50mm would be the best choice for me, as I went ahead and got the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 at a ridiculously low price. But as I've read on plenty of other forums, it all comes down to what you want, a stop faster on the Tamron 17-50, or the extra zoom on the Sigma 17-70mm.

10-27-2010, 10:31 PM	#15
MickB New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Brisneyland Posts: 15	How much did you get the 70-200mm for if you don't mind me asking. I'm looking at picking one up myself.