[pop4]

There is also a newer version of the tamron 17-50 with OS and I think HSM (well the tammy equivalents)

As far as I know, Tamron has so far only announced one lens with USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive), which is their equivalent of SDM/USM/HSM/SWM. And this was only a development announcement, with the lens only to be offered in Canon, Nikon and Sony mounts.
Source here.

Also, Tamron has two versions of their 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di-II lens, one with, and one without VC (Vibration Control), which is their version of IS/SR/OS. The VC version is not available in Pentax mount, but from all reports that I have read, the non-VC version is slightly sharper, and shooting Pentax, we have SR in-body anyway.

---

Last edited by pop4; 10-28-2010 at 07:41 PM. Reason: speeling/grandma

[Deimos]

shooting Pentax, we have SR in-body anyway.

that explains why they dont make the new one for pentax mount hehe

[simico]

Tamron's 17-50 AF speed and build quality in comparison to Pentax's 16-50.

A local pentaxian went this route, replaced his DA* 16-50 with the Tamron 17-50. AF is faster on the Tamron, it's such a quick "zip" that screwdrive sound isn't a problem unless the lens has to go from infinity to minimum focus distance. It also focuses faster than my DA 17-70. Build quality is fine, IQ is just slightly worse than DA* 16-50 according to him, it seemed fine to me.

If weather sealing is not important to you then Tamron 17-50 is a good choice.

[Jewelltrail]

I've been shooting with the Tamron 17-50 2 & a half years. I chose it over the Da 16-50--price not a factor. I hike in all 4 seasons of the year in New England and take the Tammy above tree-line in the Presidential range of the White Mountians in winter months. The lens works splendidly, even in temps which are often below zero degrees. I keep the lens and camera tucked under my outer shell, until I select a shot. The build quality leaves nothing to be desired. Here are some other reasons I chose the Tamron:

It is much lighter
It has less distortion @ wide end
It close focuses slightly closer
It has better CA control
It is better wide open


Its Achilles' Heel, if it has one, is it is too sharp.

---

Last edited by Jewelltrail; 10-29-2010 at 12:31 PM. Reason: add a pic

[Deimos]

nice! cant wait to try mine out!

[Ubuntu_user]

I've been shooting with the Tamron 17-50 2 & a half years. I chose it over the Da 16-50--price not a factor. I hike in all 4 seasons of the year in New England and take the Tammy above tree-line in the Presidential range of the White Mountians in winter months. The lens works splendidly, even in temps which are often below zero degrees. I keep the lens and camera tucked under my outer shell, until I select a shot. The build quality leaves nothing to be desired. Here are some other reasons I chose the Tamron:

It is much lighter
It has less distortion @ wide end
It close focuses slightly closer
It has better CA control
It is better wide open


Its Achilles' Heel, if it has one, is it is too sharp.

Oooh. I think you maybe just pushed me over the edge... You think it's worth selling my 16-50 in exchange for the 17-50?

Also, does anyone know if it does full time MF override?

[K Logan]

Would you mind posting some photos from your Sigma 17-50. I've been considering this lens. Thx.

[Jewelltrail]

Ubuntuuser: Also, when zoomed in (so that the lens barrel is extended) how far does the tamron stick out?

@ 17mm, with end cap on, it is 4.25 inches long, and extends to 5.25 inches long @ 50mm.

Ubuntuuser: Oooh. I think you maybe just pushed me over the edge... You think it's worth selling my 16-50 in exchange for the 17-50?

Also, does anyone know if it does full time MF override?

I can not make the decision for you, but can supply aids and facts. To use the Tammy in MF, you need to switch camera body to MF. The da has the advantage with quick shift, though it is of no use to me because I bought this lens for AF--I use my Old taks for fun MFing. The Tamron lens, from B & H, needed no adjustments in my K20d--perfect out of box--my first copy.

You may want to think of 2 more things. The da almost certainly has better lens coatings. However, and you must bear this one in mind, the warranty on the Tamron is 6years--what is it on the Da?

Finally, posting shots of the Tammy from the Winter months is not really fair. A better example would be from the Fall--I find the lens so sharp that, even after downsizing like this, adding any sharpness to compensate destroys the pic--it took me a while to realize this.

[paperbag846]

I've been thinking about spending the same amount of money this lens would cost me on a single LTD prime!!

So let me ask you - what would your honest criticisms be? Do you find it works well for portraits? It really seems like a good buy... what's the catch?

[Eruditass]

I chose the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 over the Tamron because it supposedly the Tamron's bokeh can be distracting (moreso than the Sigma's), Sigma has notably closer focusing abilities, and a flatter focus field.

The Tamron is supposed to have better edge/border sharpness, and I've heard mixed things about whether its center sharpness is better or not than the Sigma's. Mostly heard better.

[Jewelltrail]

Pperbag846: I've been thinking about spending the same amount of money this lens would cost me on a single LTD prime!!

So let me ask you - what would your honest criticisms be? Do you find it works well for portraits? It really seems like a good buy... what's the catch?

If the lens has a weakness---it is too sharp. Also, reportedley getting a good copy of the lens can be vexing for some users. That is why I would buy from B & H or another excellent dealer: they will ensure you are happy with your copy.

Other people have reported preferences for colors in other lenses. I shoot RAW and adjust colors in PPing with all my lenses. I use the 85 & 90mm focal length for portraits. But if you want to get close, surely you could use this lens for portraits. I use this lens for group shots though.

[Jewelltrail]

Eruditass: I chose the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 over the Tamron.........

I have heard that is a very nice lens too.

[paperbag846]

If the lens has a weakness---it is too sharp. Also, reportedley getting a good copy of the lens can be vexing for some users. That is why I would buy from B & H or another excellent dealer: they will ensure you are happy with your copy.

Other people have reported preferences for colors in other lenses. I shoot RAW and adjust colors in PPing with all my lenses. I use the 85 & 90mm focal length for portraits. But if you want to get close, surely you could use this lens for portraits. I use this lens for group shots though.

By too sharp, do you mean that the OOF areas tend to be busy? I notice that with the DA 35 LTD... it's sharp as can be, but the bokeh is not ideal. It seems you either get a sharp lens, or a less with nice OOF rendering.

[Jewelltrail]

Paperbag846: By too sharp, do you mean that the OOF areas tend to be busy? I notice that with the DA 35 LTD... it's sharp as can be, but the bokeh is not ideal. It seems you either get a sharp lens, or a less with nice OOF rendering.

By too sharp I simply mean that. It is not a lens you want to PP by adding sharpening. And sharpness is not an attribute sought after in a portrait lens. Bokeh has been nit-picked by some, but the lens is mainly a wide angle lens, not a telephoto bokeh baby. Bokeh will generally look better on longer lenses with ample separation between subject & background. With a close and busy background, coupled with bright lights on WA, you will get bokeh which some find unpleasant (haloing--see bird shot below, which is wide open, btw) I see this in lots of Pentax lenses. This shot processed with Neatimage, which strips EXIF--but I have original RAW and assure you it is wide open. I have nearly this same scene, @ F4 & 5 and the haloing dissapears at those smaller apertures. Note--the bird shot is a crop, which has removed some of the haloing, but has also accentuated the existing haloing. Detail & sharpness, from Neatimage, has been modestly reduced in the bird shot.

Also, here is the closest I do to portraits with the lens (shot below). Notice I used flash, did not nail it, and shot suffers some from blown subject highlights--not the Tammy's fault here. Let me know if does not answer your queestion--tx.

Finally--I bought this lens to accompany on my extensive hiking adventures--it is a valuable focal range and produces superior landscape shots throughout the range. For a constant aperture, 2.8 lens, it is very light--compare it to the Da 16-50. When I am out 10 miles in the wilderness, carrying a backpack full of all sorts of gear ranging from MP3 players, water & food, extra clothing, tri-pod, DSLR, first aid, headlamps, etc., it is great to have this lens, and only this lens upon which to rely.

[jolepp]

I've been thinking about spending the same amount of money this lens would cost me on a single LTD prime!!

So let me ask you - what would your honest criticisms be? Do you find it works well for portraits? It really seems like a good buy... what's the catch?

Personally I haven't found anything to complain about, but then I wouldn't consider myself a seasoned photographer. Also I've had the Tamron for just only a couple of weeks. As already mentioned, the most often mentioned problems seem to be front/back focusing (= warranty issue) and slightly warmer color rendering (than Pentax lenses, apparently).

I got the Tamron with indoor use without a flash in mind, and that is mostly what I've done with it so far. When I got it I did some informal test shots, and was pretty impressed to find that it is roughly in the same league with the Pentax-M 1.4 as far as sharpness is concerned. Also, the sharpness is there right from f=2.8. I haven't been bothered by the color rendering as getting the WB about right indoors has been much more of a practical issue than some subtle difference the lens might cause. I haven't noticed anything disturbing in the bokeh either, but that might be a matter of taste or one of my relative noobness :-)