[Ash]

Same thing has been mentioned in the lens review database over and over again. Microcontrast and colour - the DA* has a clear advantage.

[Canada_Rockies]

An analysis I did on my photos taken with the K10D show that I use this lens for 4 shots in 10. It's that good. All three of my DA lenses are included in the corrections handled by using DxO as the raw converter. This first set shows what DxO v5 does with backlit detail while the second set shows how it handles distortion and how it can correct keystone distortion at the same time, although keystone distortion is handled just as well by other programs. There are other sets that show this lens at work as well as the DA 12-24 and the DA* 50-135. All Flickr sets include full size JPEGs with EXIF. Annoyingly, Flickr drops the EXIF data on the smaller sizes.

Set 1 - Taken due South from my back yard with lots and lots of Ponderosa pine against the bright sky.
DxO Distortion Tests - a set on Flickr

Set 2 - indoor shot showing distortion correction and also a scenic that shows the color treatment that Kari is talking about. The scenic displays a real life shot, which is where I really use the DA* 16-50.
_IGP3963_DxO | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[Jewelltrail]

Pe

ntaxor: there should be something to give. although you are correct with regards to color. that's the thing that makes the Pentax lens.

Colors are 1 of the easiest things to PP. Pentax lens or no Pentax lens, colors are something I'm always making to my taste, on every shot. Color is a very subjective attribute.

[dankoBanana]

I had to make this decision a while back and what eventually won me over on the DA* was actual photos taken with it compared to the Sigma and Tamron. It just had that extra something in the colours and contrast that gave it the 'wow' factor. You can look at test charts all day, but they do not really give the full picture.

have to agree ... I'm in the same boat ... I'm currently waiting for my DA* to arrive

[Jasvox]

I strongly recommend the Tamron 17-50/2.8 because it is a great value and a very sharp lens which produces nice bright images and because I own one and talking it up makes me feel good about my purchase decision and overall peace of mind with it.

Jason

[Frogfish]

Same thing has been mentioned in the lens review database over and over again. Microcontrast and colour - the DA* has a clear advantage.

As JT said colour is both subjective and easey peasey to PP. Topaz even have a slider to control microcontrast as well. I am not seeing an extra $500 worth of value, or quality, over the Tamron, or near $400 over the Sigma.

[Canada_Rockies]

As JT said colour is both subjective and easey peasey to PP. Topaz even have a slider to control microcontrast as well. I am not seeing an extra $500 worth of value, or quality, over the Tamron, or near $400 over the Sigma.

The value is a subjective thing also. I did not enjoy dark room work after the thrill of learning how to work B&W myself, and I do not enjoy post processing every image I take - Light room is Dark room, after all. I want the software I bought to do it all for me wherever it has the capability. To me, the premium to use the Pentax lenses and equipment to avoid PP effort is worth it.

Another thing that can seriously affect my decision is the direction in which the zoom, aperture and focus controls turn or push and pull. I want them all to turn in the same direction to do the same thing. The last thing I want to do is to change lenses and zoom in the wrong direction when the image is fleeting. The worst I remember is a one touch zoom I had briefly where the push/pull worked the opposite to a Pentax, the focus turned the opposite way and the aperture ring turned the other way as well. I suppose it was designed to mimic Canon. I can't even remember the brand, but that cost me any number of shots during the short time I owned it. It had to go.

Your mileage may vary, as they say.

---

Last edited by Canada_Rockies; 12-15-2010 at 12:18 PM.

[PentaxScott]

Another thing that can seriously affect my decision is the direction in which the zoom, aperture and focus controls turn or push and pull. I want them all to turn in the same direction to do the same thing. The last thing I want to do is to change lenses and zoom in the wrong direction when the image is fleeting.

Oddly enough, when I compare lenses for myself, if I cant find a feature or two that are "tipping points" in my decisions, I fall back on this very thing as well. When the zooming or focusing goes in opposite directions than Im used to, I can get fouled up at a critical time.

I personally own the DA* 16-50. My first copy had a decentering issue, but after sending it back to Pentax, I received a new copy which was MUCH better! (1.5-2 stops better sharpness on the corners/edges). My coworker and friend who also shoots pentax, after borrowing that lens a couple of times, determined he needed a constant f/2.8 zoom in the same range. He couldnt afford the Pentax so after research he went with the Tamron. The IQ to dollar advantage CLEARLY goes to the Tamron. The going price is nearly half of what the Pentax is ($750ish vs $450ish often with rebates taking that price to closer to $400). Personally though, I prefer the overall rendition of the Pentax (color and microcontrast) to the Tamron. The build quality of both lenses is superb. The Pentax offers the weather sealing as well as quick shift that the Tamron does not. Ultimately, the biggest differences in the lenses are the physical traits, as the image qualities are close. If money is no object, the DA* is a great option, however on a budget, the Tamron wont dissapoint. I hear the Sigma is also OK, but the Tamron does have rounded aperture blades, which was a tipping point for my friend when he bought it.

[Ash]

As JT said colour is both subjective and easey peasey to PP. Topaz even have a slider to control microcontrast as well. I am not seeing an extra $500 worth of value, or quality, over the Tamron, or near $400 over the Sigma.

Disagree.
The value is in the aspects of IQ that PP cannot indestructibly alter.
Scott says right in that the value for money goes to Tamron (that goes for *all* Tamron lenses!) but the extra IQ advantage the DA* has is not negligible.
If PP software keeps improving at the rate it is, then it will start creating the impression in some users that any kit lens shot can be transformed into a masterpiece only thought possible by the best lenses.

Perhaps I may be a little old fashioned for a young guy - but getting the IQ I want in the original RAW file is much more desirable than attempting to PP the crap out of my image to create the result I desire. This may be an overexaggeration in this case as the Tamron produces quite comparable results to the DA*, but there are immeasurable aspects of IQ that the DA* just excels in, and its in these 'wow' factors that makes all the difference (just as we claim the FA ltd are magically possessed by pixie dust).

Of course, if build quality and weather sealing aren't priorities for you, then you'll find it hard to justify the extra cost of the DA* over the Tamron.

[Eruditass]

well that's nice then. since I'm trying to avoid the VC version which was reported to be a disappointment.

Yep, I've heard that too. I prefer lenses without IS/OS/VC/whatever in them. Many times these extra elements in the pathway are detrimental in some way compared to their predecessors. Shame that most new lenses will have them and there won't be an optically similar version without it.

[GeneV]

I strongly recommend the Tamron 17-50/2.8 because it is a great value and a very sharp lens which produces nice bright images and because I own one and talking it up makes me feel good about my purchase decision and overall peace of mind with it.

Jason

That should be part of the signature line for many.

[Eruditass]

I had to make this decision a while back and what eventually won me over on the DA* was actual photos taken with it compared to the Sigma and Tamron. It just had that extra something in the colours and contrast that gave it the 'wow' factor. You can look at test charts all day, but they do not really give the full picture.

A MTF chart measuring low spatial frequencies will measure microcontrast, though not colors.

While I do look at pictures with lenses, my perception is influenced a lot by emotion: the skill of the photographer and post processing. RAW controlled tests along with MTF tests of high and low spatial frequencies would be best.

Personally, I decided mostly based on flexibility and features.

[GeneV]

Disagree.
The value is in the aspects of IQ that PP cannot indestructibly alter.
Scott says right in that the value for money goes to Tamron (that goes for *all* Tamron lenses!) but the extra IQ advantage the DA* has is not negligible.
If PP software keeps improving at the rate it is, then it will start creating the impression in some users that any kit lens shot can be transformed into a masterpiece only thought possible by the best lenses..

Photoshop has become the great equalizer, but creating an image that way is not for everyone. It is one reason I still shoot film as well as digital.

[Ash]

Photoshop has become the great equalizer, but creating an image that way is not for everyone. It is one reason I still shoot film as well as digital.

I get the impression that heavily PP'd images will soon (if not already) be the norm in photography and fewer people will appreciate only simply manipulated out of camera images (basic levels, curves and contrast for example), just as discussed in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography/125174-why-post-cheating-my-mind.html

One way I look at the difference between the DA* and Tamron in this light is to consider the DA* an investment (above WR and build) into the time saving you may gain from not having to PP as much as with results from rival lenses. Perhaps a crude justification, but I consider some virtue in having less to do to an out-of-camera shot, particularly in more large scale editing projects such as in wedding photography.

[Pentaxor]

I get the impression that heavily PP'd images will soon (if not already) be the norm in photography and fewer people will appreciate only simply manipulated out of camera images (basic levels, curves and contrast for example), just as discussed in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography/125174-why-post-cheating-my-mind.html

One way I look at the difference between the DA* and Tamron in this light is to consider the DA* an investment (above WR and build) into the time saving you may gain from not having to PP as much as with results from rival lenses. Perhaps a crude justification, but I consider some virtue in having less to do to an out-of-camera shot, particularly in more large scale editing projects such as in wedding photography.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. PP'ed images are widely accepted nowadays and a common individual would be more impressed with heavily PP'ed work. I do believe that great photographers are even more neglected nowadays in place of cheaper novice competition that can do great things with the help of simple post-processing. I was never really impressed by super-imposed or overly done HDR images as anyone practically can do that. compositional skills, lighting and effective use of the environment, camera and lenses would still trump a flat subject enhanced by PP. so sad that the common masses don't see this.