DA* 16-50 or Sigma 17-50 or Tamron 17-50

Tommot1965 · 12-29-2010, 03:56 AM

here's a landscape 1/100 F8 @ 50mm... ISO 200 with -7 EV

Messing with a HDR shot of Perth Australia 50mm bracketed 5 images then did HDR in PS..its ok..but im not sure ?

Pentaxor · 12-29-2010, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Tommot1965

Pentaxor

I did the images to show how sharp the lens is....not the subject matter...what sort of image are you after...give me some parameters and Ill look after you

portrait shot. something that would show the sharpness and the bokeh blur at the same time or showing significant subject isolation like the flower shot inorder to see the quality of the bokeh. a shot from minimum focus distance or midrange. RAW file instead of jpeg.

if you could shoot something with a busy background like branches and shrubs just to see how they would blur out. focal range at 28mm, 35mm and 50mm shot at f2.8 and f4 respectively.

Tommot1965 · 12-29-2010, 12:55 PM

no worries , as soon as the sun ii up ill crack on with those shots....so to conform what your after ..a portrait shot...{ human} head and shoulders ?

one other thing that I didn't mention..is how much brighter and clearer my VF is now, that over the Pentax 16-45 lens that left a murkier VF

**Ash** · 12-29-2010, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Tommot1965

no worries , as soon as the sun ii up ill crack on with those shots....so to conform what your after ..a portrait shot...{ human} head and shoulders ?

Portrait as in the vertically oriented image you posted up.

Pentaxor · 12-29-2010, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Portrait as in the vertically oriented image you posted up.

better shoot with a human. Santa Claus is done for the year.

anyway, human is better to see the skin tone and details as well. just to see how sharp the lens really is.

Tommot1965 · 12-30-2010, 03:30 AM

I did some sample portraits..but the missus wont let me post them as it shows too many wrinkles..LOL

Ill get a younger model in the next couple of days and try again...you do want a full head and shoulders shot at each focal length you asked for ?..

from what I did this afternoon.. this lens is just so sharp..and would equal any image ive yet seen from any prime in the pentax range...its 3d in the rendering

im well chuffed with it

Tommot1965 · 12-30-2010, 06:02 AM

edit.....................

Last edited by Tommot1965; 02-22-2011 at 04:38 AM.

Tommot1965 · 12-30-2010, 06:29 AM

did a little PP work to this one..softened boasted levels, increased saturation and add some vignette, touched up some blemishes ...shell like this much better

Pentaxor · 12-30-2010, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Tommot1965

ok..shes gone to bed...so heres goes..

the last two the focus looks a little off, also the scaled Jpeg doesn't do the raw justice....unedited on my screen in raw..they are very good...

50mm 1/160 F4 at 100ISO

36 mm 1/250 F2.8 100ISO

50 mm 1/400 F2.8 100ISO

thanks tommot. the lens is indeed very sharp and bokeh is very nice. you can't ask for more from a f2.8 lens. if budget is not an issue, I would prefer it over the Tamron which is also great on it own right.

JHD · 12-30-2010, 09:47 AM

These fine zooms have me convinced that primes have past their prime.

Jewelltrail · 12-30-2010, 01:40 PM

Tommot1965, I really appreciate you taking time to do this ofr us--thank you.

It sure is a beautiful lens you have there.

Quote:

JHD These fine zooms have me convinced that primes have past their prime.

I agree, zooms have closed so much of the gap in IQ that it amazes me. I understand many people love their primes, but the reality of things nowadays makes that love less for practical reasons, as it once was, and more for sentimental reasons.

dgaies · 12-30-2010, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by JHD

These fine zooms have me convinced that primes have past their prime.

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

I agree, zooms have closed so much of the gap in IQ that it amazes me. I understand many people love their primes, but the reality of things nowadays makes that love less for practical reasons, as it once was, and more for sentimental reasons.

There's no doubt that in terms of IQ, modern zooms have closed the IQ gap against primes. So with the IQ argument aside, the other advantages of primes are their smaller size and larger maximum apertures. No question that in terms of convenience and versatility that zooms win out.

Tommot1965 · 12-30-2010, 02:32 PM

thanks for the comment's guys,

I was Hesitant on posting these samples after they had Jpeg compression, and to keep them under 1 meg, as they look flat, soft and lack the saturation compared to the Raw file...

If you look at the PP file and then the Jpeg, the Raw file is probably some ware in-between...

I can honestly say the Sigma is now my favourite lens. its well made. the zoom has good resistance and will not creep{ although I doubt any 17-50 would}...it would be perfect it it was full time manual focus.....

As for primes...of course Id still love them...but this lens has taken the pressure off getting the ones within the 17-50 range....a FA 77 id sell a kidney for...LOL

as Dgaies has said, the primes are light and the FA primes offer 1.8....all the da primes with in this range are either 2.8 or slower..so its really only the FA that keep the edge in speed .

now if the 70-200 OS is as sharp...id have to say WOW..LMAO

dgaies · 12-30-2010, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Tommot1965

As for primes...of course Id still love them...but this lens has taken the pressure off getting the ones within the 17-50 range....a FA 77 id sell a kidney for...LOL

I'm not sure what organs go for on your side of the world, but I'm pretty sure you should be able to get a lot more than just an FA77 for your kidney - I'm thinking you could get least the trio of FA limiteds and maybe that DA*60-250 you want for the price of a single kidney

Jewelltrail · 12-30-2010, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Dgaies: There's no doubt that in terms of IQ, modern zooms have closed the IQ gap against primes. So with the IQ argument aside, the other advantages of primes are their smaller size and larger maximum apertures. No question that in terms of convenience and versatility that zooms win out.

The weight argument is losing steam too, because modern zooms, with great IQ, are covering larger and larger focal ranges. If I have to carrry 4 primes, to cover my Tammy from 17-50mm, how much weight do I save? And if you want to talk convenience, how cnvenient can it be to be switching 4 primes off and on a camera all day long?

When I put my 17-50 in my hiking bag, and leave a bucket of other lenses behind, weight and convenience are paramount in that decision. And the 17-50 is offering prime like sharpness, in some cases better sharpness than some primes.

In the case of this here Sigma of Tommot1965, you are talking sharpness, to the edges, which beats most primes. My primes are gathering dust!!!

JHD has said it well!

12-30-2010, 03:30 AM	#126
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	I did some sample portraits..but the missus wont let me post them as it shows too many wrinkles..LOL Ill get a younger model in the next couple of days and try again...you do want a full head and shoulders shot at each focal length you asked for ?.. from what I did this afternoon.. this lens is just so sharp..and would equal any image ive yet seen from any prime in the pentax range...its 3d in the rendering im well chuffed with it Last edited by Tommot1965; 12-30-2010 at 07:14 AM.

12-30-2010, 02:32 PM	#133
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	thanks for the comment's guys, I was Hesitant on posting these samples after they had Jpeg compression, and to keep them under 1 meg, as they look flat, soft and lack the saturation compared to the Raw file... If you look at the PP file and then the Jpeg, the Raw file is probably some ware in-between... I can honestly say the Sigma is now my favourite lens. its well made. the zoom has good resistance and will not creep{ although I doubt any 17-50 would}...it would be perfect it it was full time manual focus..... As for primes...of course Id still love them...but this lens has taken the pressure off getting the ones within the 17-50 range....a FA 77 id sell a kidney for...LOL as Dgaies has said, the primes are light and the FA primes offer 1.8....all the da primes with in this range are either 2.8 or slower..so its really only the FA that keep the edge in speed . now if the 70-200 OS is as sharp...id have to say WOW..LMAO Last edited by Tommot1965; 12-30-2010 at 02:41 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tamron 17-50mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Sigma 17-70mm, which lens for my trip to Greece?	macky112	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	11-20-2011 03:08 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 24-60mm F2.8 (K mount) and Tamron Adaptall 24mm F2.5 with Tamron P/K ada	pxpaulx	Sold Items	4	08-27-2010 08:47 PM
Tamron 18-250 vs Sigma/Tamron 70-300 ?	simonkit	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	09-04-2007 07:12 PM

12-29-2010, 03:56 AM	#121
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	here's a landscape 1/100 F8 @ 50mm... ISO 200 with -7 EV Messing with a HDR shot of Perth Australia 50mm bracketed 5 images then did HDR in PS..its ok..but im not sure ?

12-29-2010, 08:29 AM	#122
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Tommot1965 Pentaxor I did the images to show how sharp the lens is....not the subject matter...what sort of image are you after...give me some parameters and Ill look after you portrait shot. something that would show the sharpness and the bokeh blur at the same time or showing significant subject isolation like the flower shot inorder to see the quality of the bokeh. a shot from minimum focus distance or midrange. RAW file instead of jpeg. if you could shoot something with a busy background like branches and shrubs just to see how they would blur out. focal range at 28mm, 35mm and 50mm shot at f2.8 and f4 respectively.

12-29-2010, 12:55 PM	#123
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	no worries , as soon as the sun ii up ill crack on with those shots....so to conform what your after ..a portrait shot...{ human} head and shoulders ? one other thing that I didn't mention..is how much brighter and clearer my VF is now, that over the Pentax 16-45 lens that left a murkier VF

12-29-2010, 01:16 PM	#124
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Tommot1965 no worries , as soon as the sun ii up ill crack on with those shots....so to conform what your after ..a portrait shot...{ human} head and shoulders ? Portrait as in the vertically oriented image you posted up.

12-29-2010, 02:07 PM	#125
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Ash Portrait as in the vertically oriented image you posted up. better shoot with a human. Santa Claus is done for the year. anyway, human is better to see the skin tone and details as well. just to see how sharp the lens really is.

12-30-2010, 06:02 AM	#127
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	edit..................... Last edited by Tommot1965; 02-22-2011 at 04:38 AM.

12-30-2010, 06:29 AM	#128
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	did a little PP work to this one..softened boasted levels, increased saturation and add some vignette, touched up some blemishes ...shell like this much better

12-30-2010, 08:52 AM	#129
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Tommot1965 ok..shes gone to bed...so heres goes.. the last two the focus looks a little off, also the scaled Jpeg doesn't do the raw justice....unedited on my screen in raw..they are very good... 50mm 1/160 F4 at 100ISO 36 mm 1/250 F2.8 100ISO 50 mm 1/400 F2.8 100ISO thanks tommot. the lens is indeed very sharp and bokeh is very nice. you can't ask for more from a f2.8 lens. if budget is not an issue, I would prefer it over the Tamron which is also great on it own right.

12-30-2010, 09:47 AM	#130
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	These fine zooms have me convinced that primes have past their prime.

12-30-2010, 01:40 PM	#131
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Tommot1965, I really appreciate you taking time to do this ofr us--thank you. It sure is a beautiful lens you have there. Quote: JHD These fine zooms have me convinced that primes have past their prime. I agree, zooms have closed so much of the gap in IQ that it amazes me. I understand many people love their primes, but the reality of things nowadays makes that love less for practical reasons, as it once was, and more for sentimental reasons.

12-30-2010, 02:14 PM	#132
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by JHD These fine zooms have me convinced that primes have past their prime. Originally posted by Jewelltrail I agree, zooms have closed so much of the gap in IQ that it amazes me. I understand many people love their primes, but the reality of things nowadays makes that love less for practical reasons, as it once was, and more for sentimental reasons. There's no doubt that in terms of IQ, modern zooms have closed the IQ gap against primes. So with the IQ argument aside, the other advantages of primes are their smaller size and larger maximum apertures. No question that in terms of convenience and versatility that zooms win out.

12-30-2010, 02:35 PM	#134
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by Tommot1965 As for primes...of course Id still love them...but this lens has taken the pressure off getting the ones within the 17-50 range....a FA 77 id sell a kidney for...LOL I'm not sure what organs go for on your side of the world, but I'm pretty sure you should be able to get a lot more than just an FA77 for your kidney - I'm thinking you could get least the trio of FA limiteds and maybe that DA*60-250 you want for the price of a single kidney

12-30-2010, 02:55 PM	#135
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Dgaies: There's no doubt that in terms of IQ, modern zooms have closed the IQ gap against primes. So with the IQ argument aside, the other advantages of primes are their smaller size and larger maximum apertures. No question that in terms of convenience and versatility that zooms win out. The weight argument is losing steam too, because modern zooms, with great IQ, are covering larger and larger focal ranges. If I have to carrry 4 primes, to cover my Tammy from 17-50mm, how much weight do I save? And if you want to talk convenience, how cnvenient can it be to be switching 4 primes off and on a camera all day long? When I put my 17-50 in my hiking bag, and leave a bucket of other lenses behind, weight and convenience are paramount in that decision. And the 17-50 is offering prime like sharpness, in some cases better sharpness than some primes. In the case of this here Sigma of Tommot1965, you are talking sharpness, to the edges, which beats most primes. My primes are gathering dust!!! JHD has said it well!