DA 16-45mm Vs 17-50mm/2.8 , which one ?

ewig · 11-24-2010, 06:40 AM

have read and search in this forum but still doubt ..which one is from these both lense better in value and perfomance

DA 16-45/f4 :

pros :
- good colour rendition
-sharp and wide open in f/4 already enough

cons :
-barell distortion in wide angle or in 16 mm
-just f4 stop and CA issue had been removed

TAmron 17-50/f2,8 ;

pros :
- wide open make a wonderfull bokeh, it doesnt matter if you want to take the widest angle of this lens, cause wides mean above f8
- faster one stop than f4 but the price is also higher

cons :
-different 1mm is a big thing considered in APC sensor is gonna like 24 mm vs 26mm
- filter too big 77 mm

any suggestion from user , who had been use this produk ??

thx anyway for the tip

regard

Last edited by ewig; 11-24-2010 at 07:22 AM.

GeneV · 11-24-2010, 06:51 AM

I don't own either, and both of these lenses will have strong proponents. I will be surprised if there is a consensus about what the OP should do, but perhaps some of the owners of these lenses can answer the specific questions posed.

paperbag846 · 11-24-2010, 07:31 AM

I don't own either, either, but I was very temped by the Tamron before I went and blew my budget on other things

. My opinion is purely theoretical, but I would go with the tamron for two reasons.

1) It is faster, and I find the difference between f4 and f2.8 very large (I can get away with 2.8 indoors with ok light, but f4 is flash territory only).

2) f2.8 + 50mm reach = reasonable portraits. You might lose a few degrees on the wide end (which you might, or might not, miss), but you gain more on the long end and you get the nicer bokeh. I'd imagine you can take much nicer portraits with the Tamron than the 16-45.

Therefore you get a wide angle, normal, and portrait lens all in one, which I believe would justify the cost difference between it and the 16-45 which would essentially be a wide angle and normal lens.

Wait for the people who own it to be sure, though

.

tybeck · 11-24-2010, 08:30 AM

The DA 16-45/4 was one of my first lenses and is still my go to lens if I can only carry one. Normally I carry the DA 12-24/4 and a Tamron 28-75/2.8. Your assessment of the 16-45 strengths and weaknesses is spot on. The two cons you list can be taken care of in software pretty easily. CA can require some effort depending how had it is. PTLens will go a long way to correct both.

I'd say it really depends on what kind of photos you are going to take. As mentioned if you are shooting in lower light (indoors for example) you are going to miss those few extra stops between f4 and f2.8. Then again if you are doing landscape you'll miss the reach between 16mm and 17mm. I picked the 16-45mm/4 because at the time I was doing more landscape. I picked up the 28-75/2.8 because my subject matter grew to include lower light and close shots.

Tough choice, from the reviews I've read of the 17-50mm you really can't go wrong with either lens for really good, general-use glass.

ybo1 · 11-24-2010, 08:33 AM

I do own the 16-45. It has a lot for it: accurate color rendition, sharp, 16mm is adorable in-town or for landscapes, excellent macro capabilities. The most annoying con with this lens is that it extends outwards when you go wide. This means that if you want to take an indoor shot with the in-built flash, you got a problem: the barrel shadow is visible on the pic!!!

I don't have the Tammy so can't comment on it. But I have seen great pics coming out of it!

ewig · 11-24-2010, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by tybeck

The DA 16-45/4 was one of my first lenses and is still my go to lens if I can only carry one. Normally I carry the DA 12-24/4 and a Tamron 28-75/2.8. Your assessment of the 16-45 strengths and weaknesses is spot on. The two cons you list can be taken care of in software pretty easily. CA can require some effort depending how had it is. PTLens will go a long way to correct both.

I'd say it really depends on what kind of photos you are going to take. As mentioned if you are shooting in lower light (indoors for example) you are going to miss those few extra stops between f4 and f2.8. Then again if you are doing landscape you'll miss the reach between 16mm and 17mm. I picked the 16-45mm/4 because at the time I was doing more landscape. I picked up the 28-75/2.8 because my subject matter grew to include lower light and close shots.

Tough choice, from the reviews I've read of the 17-50mm you really can't go wrong with either lens for really good, general-use glass.

i was plan to doing some landscape that's why it could not go wrong with 16 mm, but sometimes for "all in' lens, i think we are going to miss this difference between 4 and 2,8 because i use my *ist DS and cannot do high iso shoot to make compensation with it when im going tomake some indoor foto, so stick with f4 and hopefully super good flash blitz ...

in other case sometimes bokeh which produced by tamron are tempting me, and some review says, this lens is versatile and had a body build like WR lens ..

therefore lets wait for other user that use tamron ..

ewig · 11-24-2010, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by ybo1

I do own the 16-45. It has a lot for it: accurate color rendition, sharp, 16mm is adorable in-town or for landscapes, excellent macro capabilities. The most annoying con with this lens is that it extends outwards when you go wide. This means that if you want to take an indoor shot with the in-built flash, you got a problem: the barrel shadow is visible on the pic!!!

I don't have the Tammy so can't comment on it. But I have seen great pics coming out of it!

thats why i said ..combinated with super flash ..will work fine in indoor activity, do you think AF 240 enough to do that ???
im plan to get this flash too , because the price seem reasonable ..

Jewelltrail · 11-24-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

ewig have read and search in this forum but still doubt ..which one is from these both lense better in value and perfomance

The value of each lens is dependent upon your needs--you must evaluate your needs.

Quote:

ewig: Tamron: 17-50 2.8
cons :
-different 1mm is a big thing considered in APC sensor is gonna like 24 mm vs 26mm
- filter too big 77 mm

I own a Sigma 10-20, but find the 17mm of the Tamron to be enough most of the time. BTW, the Tamron 17-50mm uses 67mm filters, not 77mm.

Good luck on your choice.

ewig · 11-24-2010, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

The value of each lens is dependent upon your needs--you must evaluate your needs.

i need to go wide but looks like DA 12-24 or sigma 10-20 doesnt suit with my pocket.... i have already evaluated ...and i am just beginner not even a hobby.... it just passion .... it only "like" not "must "

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

I own a Sigma 10-20, but find the 17mm of the Tamron to be enough most of the time. BTW, the Tamron 17-50mm uses 67mm filters, not 77mm.

ok then perhaps you can share your experience here..so we can read it together .... thx anyway ..

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

Good luck on your choice.

thanks you ...

**Ash** · 11-24-2010, 01:48 PM

ewig, the 16-45 is a decent lens, but don't expect to get top results at f/4 and 16mm - this is the lens's weak point. Otherwise it really is a winner for landscapes.

The Tamron 17-50 on the other hands ticks a lot of other boxes, which also makes it quite an attractive option for people of a tight budget. Being faster by a stop it can also be used quite effectively for portraits as well, which the 16-45 is not so well suited for. Nevertheless, for landscapes both are no doubt good options. All the best.

ewig · 11-25-2010, 01:02 AM

@Ash : yeah ..you quiet right ... some review says , with DA we will get the best result at f8 if we are going to make landscape...

i think its also adorable considered the purpose

and with tamron 2,8 stop very useful for portrait especially in length 50 mm

right ?

KxBlaze · 11-25-2010, 02:33 AM

I have seen some MTF50 test (although I do realize that these test are not universal across the board) that have the 16-45 just barely behind the DA* 16-50 which seems very impressive to me. I cannot speak on the 17-50 but have heard some good things. I just bought a 16-45 and very curious to see if the IQ is as great as I have heard, I certainly hope so.

ewig · 11-25-2010, 02:53 AM

owh really ... where you see it ? MTF is not all but it can be a measure or something to decided which one is the right objective for the right purpose ..

ewig · 11-25-2010, 03:02 AM

To Kit or not to Kit ? Three Pentax Kit Lenses ERPhotoReview

this MTF 50 comparison ??

**Ash** · 11-25-2010, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by KxBlaze

I have seen some MTF50 test (although I do realize that these test are not universal across the board) that have the 16-45 just barely behind the DA* 16-50 which seems very impressive to me. I cannot speak on the 17-50 but have heard some good things. I just bought a 16-45 and very curious to see if the IQ is as great as I have heard, I certainly hope so.

I went through a similar discussion some time ago and naively also believed MTF was the holy grail of IQ tests, but alas it's not that simple.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/49602-da*-16-5...e-quality.html

Jay Sherman rightly states that the MTF data fails to reflect microcontrast,
which impact on sharpness and colour rendition, which then along with resolution makes up the remainder of IQ (incorporating that X or 'wow' factor.

So there is a *big* difference between the 16-50 and 16-45, despite the similar numbers presented. My experience with the 16-50 has been nothing but excellent, whereas with the 16-45 it was less impressive.

11-24-2010, 06:40 AM	#1
ewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 312	DA 16-45mm Vs 17-50mm/2.8 , which one ? have read and search in this forum but still doubt ..which one is from these both lense better in value and perfomance DA 16-45/f4 : pros : - good colour rendition -sharp and wide open in f/4 already enough cons : -barell distortion in wide angle or in 16 mm -just f4 stop and CA issue had been removed TAmron 17-50/f2,8 ; pros : - wide open make a wonderfull bokeh, it doesnt matter if you want to take the widest angle of this lens, cause wides mean above f8 - faster one stop than f4 but the price is also higher cons : -different 1mm is a big thing considered in APC sensor is gonna like 24 mm vs 26mm - filter too big 77 mm any suggestion from user , who had been use this produk ?? thx anyway for the tip regard Last edited by ewig; 11-24-2010 at 07:22 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA* 16-50mm versus DA 16-45mm	navcom	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	09-06-2010 09:30 AM
Wanted - Acquired: Tamron 17-50mm, Sigma 18-50mm, Pentax 16-45mm, or similar	Big I	Sold Items	1	06-05-2010 12:12 PM
Da 16-45mm f/4.0 ED AL vs Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro vs Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR	Deni	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	32	01-14-2010 11:13 PM
DA 16-45mm VS Tamron 17-50mm/2.8	robcap13	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	03-11-2009 09:44 AM
DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 or 16-45mm f/4	Toshi	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	05-12-2007 11:00 PM

11-24-2010, 06:51 AM	#2
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	I don't own either, and both of these lenses will have strong proponents. I will be surprised if there is a consensus about what the OP should do, but perhaps some of the owners of these lenses can answer the specific questions posed.

11-24-2010, 07:31 AM	#3
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	I don't own either, either, but I was very temped by the Tamron before I went and blew my budget on other things . My opinion is purely theoretical, but I would go with the tamron for two reasons. 1) It is faster, and I find the difference between f4 and f2.8 very large (I can get away with 2.8 indoors with ok light, but f4 is flash territory only). 2) f2.8 + 50mm reach = reasonable portraits. You might lose a few degrees on the wide end (which you might, or might not, miss), but you gain more on the long end and you get the nicer bokeh. I'd imagine you can take much nicer portraits with the Tamron than the 16-45. Therefore you get a wide angle, normal, and portrait lens all in one, which I believe would justify the cost difference between it and the 16-45 which would essentially be a wide angle and normal lens. Wait for the people who own it to be sure, though .

11-24-2010, 08:30 AM	#4
tybeck Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 452	The DA 16-45/4 was one of my first lenses and is still my go to lens if I can only carry one. Normally I carry the DA 12-24/4 and a Tamron 28-75/2.8. Your assessment of the 16-45 strengths and weaknesses is spot on. The two cons you list can be taken care of in software pretty easily. CA can require some effort depending how had it is. PTLens will go a long way to correct both. I'd say it really depends on what kind of photos you are going to take. As mentioned if you are shooting in lower light (indoors for example) you are going to miss those few extra stops between f4 and f2.8. Then again if you are doing landscape you'll miss the reach between 16mm and 17mm. I picked the 16-45mm/4 because at the time I was doing more landscape. I picked up the 28-75/2.8 because my subject matter grew to include lower light and close shots. Tough choice, from the reviews I've read of the 17-50mm you really can't go wrong with either lens for really good, general-use glass.

11-24-2010, 08:33 AM	#5
ybo1 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 135	I do own the 16-45. It has a lot for it: accurate color rendition, sharp, 16mm is adorable in-town or for landscapes, excellent macro capabilities. The most annoying con with this lens is that it extends outwards when you go wide. This means that if you want to take an indoor shot with the in-built flash, you got a problem: the barrel shadow is visible on the pic!!! I don't have the Tammy so can't comment on it. But I have seen great pics coming out of it!

11-24-2010, 10:09 AM	#6
ewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 312 Original Poster	Originally posted by tybeck The DA 16-45/4 was one of my first lenses and is still my go to lens if I can only carry one. Normally I carry the DA 12-24/4 and a Tamron 28-75/2.8. Your assessment of the 16-45 strengths and weaknesses is spot on. The two cons you list can be taken care of in software pretty easily. CA can require some effort depending how had it is. PTLens will go a long way to correct both. I'd say it really depends on what kind of photos you are going to take. As mentioned if you are shooting in lower light (indoors for example) you are going to miss those few extra stops between f4 and f2.8. Then again if you are doing landscape you'll miss the reach between 16mm and 17mm. I picked the 16-45mm/4 because at the time I was doing more landscape. I picked up the 28-75/2.8 because my subject matter grew to include lower light and close shots. Tough choice, from the reviews I've read of the 17-50mm you really can't go wrong with either lens for really good, general-use glass. i was plan to doing some landscape that's why it could not go wrong with 16 mm, but sometimes for "all in' lens, i think we are going to miss this difference between 4 and 2,8 because i use my *ist DS and cannot do high iso shoot to make compensation with it when im going tomake some indoor foto, so stick with f4 and hopefully super good flash blitz ... in other case sometimes bokeh which produced by tamron are tempting me, and some review says, this lens is versatile and had a body build like WR lens .. therefore lets wait for other user that use tamron ..

11-24-2010, 10:11 AM	#7
ewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 312 Original Poster	Originally posted by ybo1 I do own the 16-45. It has a lot for it: accurate color rendition, sharp, 16mm is adorable in-town or for landscapes, excellent macro capabilities. The most annoying con with this lens is that it extends outwards when you go wide. This means that if you want to take an indoor shot with the in-built flash, you got a problem: the barrel shadow is visible on the pic!!! I don't have the Tammy so can't comment on it. But I have seen great pics coming out of it! thats why i said ..combinated with super flash ..will work fine in indoor activity, do you think AF 240 enough to do that ??? im plan to get this flash too , because the price seem reasonable ..

11-24-2010, 10:52 AM	#8
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: ewig have read and search in this forum but still doubt ..which one is from these both lense better in value and perfomance The value of each lens is dependent upon your needs--you must evaluate your needs. Quote: ewig: Tamron: 17-50 2.8 cons : -different 1mm is a big thing considered in APC sensor is gonna like 24 mm vs 26mm - filter too big 77 mm I own a Sigma 10-20, but find the 17mm of the Tamron to be enough most of the time. BTW, the Tamron 17-50mm uses 67mm filters, not 77mm. Good luck on your choice.

11-24-2010, 01:40 PM	#9
ewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 312 Original Poster	Originally posted by Jewelltrail The value of each lens is dependent upon your needs--you must evaluate your needs. i need to go wide but looks like DA 12-24 or sigma 10-20 doesnt suit with my pocket.... i have already evaluated ...and i am just beginner not even a hobby.... it just passion .... it only "like" not "must " Originally posted by Jewelltrail I own a Sigma 10-20, but find the 17mm of the Tamron to be enough most of the time. BTW, the Tamron 17-50mm uses 67mm filters, not 77mm. ok then perhaps you can share your experience here..so we can read it together .... thx anyway .. Originally posted by Jewelltrail Good luck on your choice. thanks you ...

11-24-2010, 01:48 PM	#10
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	ewig, the 16-45 is a decent lens, but don't expect to get top results at f/4 and 16mm - this is the lens's weak point. Otherwise it really is a winner for landscapes. The Tamron 17-50 on the other hands ticks a lot of other boxes, which also makes it quite an attractive option for people of a tight budget. Being faster by a stop it can also be used quite effectively for portraits as well, which the 16-45 is not so well suited for. Nevertheless, for landscapes both are no doubt good options. All the best.

11-25-2010, 01:02 AM	#11
ewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 312 Original Poster	@Ash : yeah ..you quiet right ... some review says , with DA we will get the best result at f8 if we are going to make landscape... i think its also adorable considered the purpose and with tamron 2,8 stop very useful for portrait especially in length 50 mm right ?

11-25-2010, 02:33 AM	#12
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	I have seen some MTF50 test (although I do realize that these test are not universal across the board) that have the 16-45 just barely behind the DA* 16-50 which seems very impressive to me. I cannot speak on the 17-50 but have heard some good things. I just bought a 16-45 and very curious to see if the IQ is as great as I have heard, I certainly hope so.

11-25-2010, 02:53 AM	#13
ewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 312 Original Poster	owh really ... where you see it ? MTF is not all but it can be a measure or something to decided which one is the right objective for the right purpose ..

11-25-2010, 03:02 AM	#14
ewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 312 Original Poster	To Kit or not to Kit ? Three Pentax Kit Lenses ERPhotoReview this MTF 50 comparison ??

11-25-2010, 01:13 PM	#15
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by KxBlaze I have seen some MTF50 test (although I do realize that these test are not universal across the board) that have the 16-45 just barely behind the DA* 16-50 which seems very impressive to me. I cannot speak on the 17-50 but have heard some good things. I just bought a 16-45 and very curious to see if the IQ is as great as I have heard, I certainly hope so. I went through a similar discussion some time ago and naively also believed MTF was the holy grail of IQ tests, but alas it's not that simple. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/49602-da-16-5...e-quality.html Jay Sherman rightly states that the MTF data fails to reflect microcontrast, which impact on sharpness and colour rendition, which then along with resolution makes up the remainder of IQ (incorporating that X or 'wow' factor. So there is a big* difference between the 16-50 and 16-45, despite the similar numbers presented. My experience with the 16-50 has been nothing but excellent, whereas with the 16-45 it was less impressive.