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

Jewelltrail · 12-16-2010, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Class A: The Tamron and the Sigma have two big disadvantages: They have no "Pentax" label and have no "*" designation. In particular the "*" aura of something special -- helped by a non-budget price -- seems to do a lot for the Pentax 16-50, oops forgot the "*" didn't I?

The claims for better colour and or micro contrast are not backed up with supporting images so I don't consider them to be helpful at all. The comparison images of the test I linked to earlier speak a clear language to me. Not in one category did the Pentax 16-50 convince with IQ superiority or magical rendering.

There are a number of lenses that make it worthwhile choosing the K-mount but the Pentax 16-50 isn't one of them AFAIC. Convincing me otherwise requires valid image comparisons as opposed to repeated claims that may seem plausible given the brand, price and the "*" designation of the lens but have not been demonstrated.

Bingo!!! The thread has been redirected to Warranty issues, but I agree with Class A. I researched for months before I selected The Tamron. Not only does the Tamron win in virtually all measurable areas, but the claim that the Da "magically" redeems itself in "wow" pics is not substantiated (not in my eyes). The warranty issue is just one concern I had--it is not the sole reason I bought the Tamron. I already listed many factors for my Tamron decision, above--no need to be redundant. I think it is great the consumer has such an array of selection in the category.

Even if Pentax did justice & upgraded their warranties to 6 or more years, in this case of the Da* 16-50, my money would get better spent elsewhere.

Last edited by Jewelltrail; 12-16-2010 at 01:05 PM.

paperbag846 · 12-16-2010, 01:28 PM

Save your DA* money for the 50-135. The Tamron looks magnificent.

dankoBanana · 12-16-2010, 01:29 PM

mine(16-50) comes on Tuesday, got it for 30% less, so if I don't like it, ill try the tamron

boy, I wish pentax made a nice 16-40 f2.4 zoom in DA* flavour

**Ash** · 12-16-2010, 01:36 PM

For many people there will indeed be little to see in IQ advantage between the Tamron and DA*.
The cost differential therefore should only be justified in the value of weather sealing and a more sturdy build quality.

Should Pentax provide 6 years of *international* warranty, I'd get another one - as Peter Zack says here and here, there is no other choice in lens in its class and if they fixed the QC issues with it, it'd have the confidence from its users again.

JHD · 12-16-2010, 03:07 PM

I've been looking at the images of the DA* 16-50 and the Tamron 17-50. No doubt the 17-50 is a fine lens, but to my eye the images in the 16-50 "show us what it can do" thread are more colorful, contrasty and compelling. The Tamron is less than half the money, but I'm thinking strictly on the merits of IQ, the difference is worth it. I can see myself buying this lens when my tax return comes through.

paperbag846 · 12-16-2010, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by JHD

the images in the 16-50 "show us what it can do" thread are more colorful, contrasty and compelling

Careful... most of the people who choose to invest in the DA* 16-50 are also more experienced photographers. Skilled exposure and post-processing has a lot to do with this.

Not saying EVERYTHING to do with it... but one only needs to look at the M club and the FA club to see that those who own the more expensive lenses tend to be better photographers.

Not saying that those who own M lenses ARENT, and there are many amazing photographers here who only use vintage glass. My point is that it is much more likely to see an amateur running around with an M lens, or something like the Tamron, than it is to see them with an FA limited or DA*, simply due to the price.

JHD · 12-16-2010, 03:46 PM

Actually, the more I look, the less certain I am. Too bad the 17-50 images aren't contained in one thread. No doubt it is an amazing lens.

paperbag846 · 12-16-2010, 03:51 PM

I really think the value of the 16-50 lies in weather sealing, SDM, quickshift, etc.

If you don't need these things, you are paying an awful lot for features you might not use.

**Ash** · 12-16-2010, 10:00 PM

Well, an exemplary series of images from the Tamron is available on this fellow's flickr collection shooting with the Canon 40D (some great work there.

Then you have: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31955-tammy-club.html

No doubt the Tamron is capable of some fine results, and it will be hard to discern from these whether the DA* is any better (I do prefer the colour/3D rendition from the DA*), but there you have it.

Enjoy.

JHD · 12-17-2010, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Ash

No doubt the Tamron is capable of some fine results, and it will be hard to discern from these whether the DA* is any better...

In the Tammy thread Jewelltrail posted a number exceptionally spectacular images with his 17-50... I'm just wondering if they are straight out of the camera or if they were post processed to look the way they do? For example...

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Forgive me as I'm not sure how to post pictures here, hope this was okay.

PentaxScott · 12-17-2010, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by paperbag846

I really think the value of the 16-50 lies in weather sealing, SDM, quickshift, etc.

If you don't need these things, you are paying an awful lot for features you might not use.

That pretty much sums it up. While people will argue and defend their lens choice - constructively as this thread has been - it comes down to the fact that a good copy of each of the lenses (Pentax/Tamron/Sigma) will be close in image quality to the others. None is a poor choice. It comes down to personal preference. The Pentax adds $200-300 in cost for a few physical features (WR, Quick Shift, SDM). If you dont need/want them, youre probably better off with the Tamron/Sigma.

Originally posted by Frogfish

Pretty much

I still haven't got my hands on the new 17-50 Sigma 2.8 yet but if I can't by the weekend then I'll buy the Tamron for now and try out the Sigma later, an easy and low cost upgrade if necessary.

I didnt look at the Sigma too closely when I was assisting my friend with this very same purchase question. The Tamron was well regarded, cheaper, had a longer warranty, and most importantly, had rounded aperture blades...which the Sigma did not. As my friend is kind of a self proclaimed bokeh freak...this made the decision a no brainer for him.

ricoh.pentax · 12-17-2010, 10:48 AM

i once got both of them... but then sdm fails..
so i bought tammy 1750.. much sharper though i cant use it under the rain.

Jewelltrail · 12-17-2010, 12:36 PM

Quote:

JHD: In the Tammy thread Jewelltrail posted a number exceptionally spectacular images with his 17-50... I'm just wondering if they are straight out of the camera or if they were post processed to look the way they do? For example...

JHD, the shot has been PPed, however, the original RAW file is exceptional. I would be willing to send you the original RAW--you can judge for yourself--PM me, and let me know where you would like it sent--here is the shot I posted that you reference above, along with another example:

**Ash** · 12-17-2010, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by JHD

In the Tammy thread Jewelltrail posted a number exceptionally spectacular images with his 17-50... I'm just wondering if they are straight out of the camera or if they were post processed to look the way they do? For example...

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Forgive me as I'm not sure how to post pictures here, hope this was okay.

I'm sure you'll find all of the images posted have had significant PP performed on them to look the way they do, but they still have to be sharp and reasonably textured in the original for the final result to look the way it does.

I'm sure your copy is great ricoh.pentax, but 'much' sharper than the DA*? You must have had a decentered or malfocusing copy of it.

Jewelltrail · 12-17-2010, 02:14 PM

Quote:

JHD: In the Tammy thread Jewelltrail posted a number exceptionally spectacular images with his 17-50... I'm just wondering if they are straight out of the camera or if they were post processed to look the way they do? For example...

JHD, I do not own Photo Shop or Lightroom. I do own a $100 copy of AE8, but only use it to correct my K20d's erratic, Auto White Balance. Mostly all of my PPing is done with free software--I use 3 different free programs. So I really can't get the max out of my Raw files--someday, I may purchase PS though.

12-17-2010, 12:36 PM	#88
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: JHD: In the Tammy thread Jewelltrail posted a number exceptionally spectacular images with his 17-50... I'm just wondering if they are straight out of the camera or if they were post processed to look the way they do? For example... JHD, the shot has been PPed, however, the original RAW file is exceptional. I would be willing to send you the original RAW--you can judge for yourself--PM me, and let me know where you would like it sent--here is the shot I posted that you reference above, along with another example: Last edited by Jewelltrail; 12-17-2010 at 01:01 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

12-16-2010, 12:56 PM	#76
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Class A: The Tamron and the Sigma have two big disadvantages: They have no "Pentax" label and have no "" designation. In particular the "" aura of something special -- helped by a non-budget price -- seems to do a lot for the Pentax 16-50, oops forgot the "" didn't I? The claims for better colour and or micro contrast are not backed up with supporting images so I don't consider them to be helpful at all. The comparison images of the test I linked to earlier speak a clear language to me. Not in one category did the Pentax 16-50 convince with IQ superiority or magical rendering. There are a number of lenses that make it worthwhile choosing the K-mount but the Pentax 16-50 isn't one of them AFAIC. Convincing me otherwise requires valid image comparisons as opposed to repeated claims that may seem plausible given the brand, price and the "" designation of the lens but have not been demonstrated. Bingo!!! The thread has been redirected to Warranty issues, but I agree with Class A. I researched for months before I selected The Tamron. Not only does the Tamron win in virtually all measurable areas, but the claim that the Da "magically" redeems itself in "wow" pics is not substantiated (not in my eyes). The warranty issue is just one concern I had--it is not the sole reason I bought the Tamron. I already listed many factors for my Tamron decision, above--no need to be redundant. I think it is great the consumer has such an array of selection in the category. Even if Pentax did justice & upgraded their warranties to 6 or more years, in this case of the Da* 16-50, my money would get better spent elsewhere. Last edited by Jewelltrail; 12-16-2010 at 01:05 PM.

12-16-2010, 01:28 PM	#77
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Save your DA* money for the 50-135. The Tamron looks magnificent.

12-16-2010, 01:29 PM	#78
dankoBanana Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Zagreb, Croatia Posts: 533	mine(16-50) comes on Tuesday, got it for 30% less, so if I don't like it, ill try the tamron boy, I wish pentax made a nice 16-40 f2.4 zoom in DA* flavour

12-16-2010, 01:36 PM	#79
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	For many people there will indeed be little to see in IQ advantage between the Tamron and DA. The cost differential therefore should only be justified in the value of weather sealing and a more sturdy build quality. Should Pentax provide 6 years of international* warranty, I'd get another one - as Peter Zack says here and here, there is no other choice in lens in its class and if they fixed the QC issues with it, it'd have the confidence from its users again.

12-16-2010, 03:07 PM	#80
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	I've been looking at the images of the DA* 16-50 and the Tamron 17-50. No doubt the 17-50 is a fine lens, but to my eye the images in the 16-50 "show us what it can do" thread are more colorful, contrasty and compelling. The Tamron is less than half the money, but I'm thinking strictly on the merits of IQ, the difference is worth it. I can see myself buying this lens when my tax return comes through.

12-16-2010, 03:33 PM	#81
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by JHD the images in the 16-50 "show us what it can do" thread are more colorful, contrasty and compelling Careful... most of the people who choose to invest in the DA* 16-50 are also more experienced photographers. Skilled exposure and post-processing has a lot to do with this. Not saying EVERYTHING to do with it... but one only needs to look at the M club and the FA club to see that those who own the more expensive lenses tend to be better photographers. Not saying that those who own M lenses ARENT, and there are many amazing photographers here who only use vintage glass. My point is that it is much more likely to see an amateur running around with an M lens, or something like the Tamron, than it is to see them with an FA limited or DA*, simply due to the price.

12-16-2010, 03:46 PM	#82
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Actually, the more I look, the less certain I am. Too bad the 17-50 images aren't contained in one thread. No doubt it is an amazing lens.

12-16-2010, 03:51 PM	#83
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	I really think the value of the 16-50 lies in weather sealing, SDM, quickshift, etc. If you don't need these things, you are paying an awful lot for features you might not use.

12-16-2010, 10:00 PM	#84
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Well, an exemplary series of images from the Tamron is available on this fellow's flickr collection shooting with the Canon 40D (some great work there. Then you have: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31955-tammy-club.html No doubt the Tamron is capable of some fine results, and it will be hard to discern from these whether the DA* is any better (I do prefer the colour/3D rendition from the DA*), but there you have it. Enjoy.

12-17-2010, 08:56 AM	#85
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by Ash No doubt the Tamron is capable of some fine results, and it will be hard to discern from these whether the DA* is any better... In the Tammy thread Jewelltrail posted a number exceptionally spectacular images with his 17-50... I'm just wondering if they are straight out of the camera or if they were post processed to look the way they do? For example... Uploaded with ImageShack.us Forgive me as I'm not sure how to post pictures here, hope this was okay.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-17-2010, 09:58 AM	#86
PentaxScott Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Salt Lake City UT Photos: Albums Posts: 182	Originally posted by paperbag846 I really think the value of the 16-50 lies in weather sealing, SDM, quickshift, etc. If you don't need these things, you are paying an awful lot for features you might not use. That pretty much sums it up. While people will argue and defend their lens choice - constructively as this thread has been - it comes down to the fact that a good copy of each of the lenses (Pentax/Tamron/Sigma) will be close in image quality to the others. None is a poor choice. It comes down to personal preference. The Pentax adds $200-300 in cost for a few physical features (WR, Quick Shift, SDM). If you dont need/want them, youre probably better off with the Tamron/Sigma. Originally posted by Frogfish Pretty much I still haven't got my hands on the new 17-50 Sigma 2.8 yet but if I can't by the weekend then I'll buy the Tamron for now and try out the Sigma later, an easy and low cost upgrade if necessary. I didnt look at the Sigma too closely when I was assisting my friend with this very same purchase question. The Tamron was well regarded, cheaper, had a longer warranty, and most importantly, had rounded aperture blades...which the Sigma did not. As my friend is kind of a self proclaimed bokeh freak...this made the decision a no brainer for him.

12-17-2010, 10:48 AM	#87
ricoh.pentax Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Bandoeng Posts: 40	i once got both of them... but then sdm fails.. so i bought tammy 1750.. much sharper though i cant use it under the rain.

12-17-2010, 01:18 PM	#89
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by JHD In the Tammy thread Jewelltrail posted a number exceptionally spectacular images with his 17-50... I'm just wondering if they are straight out of the camera or if they were post processed to look the way they do? For example... Uploaded with ImageShack.us Forgive me as I'm not sure how to post pictures here, hope this was okay. I'm sure you'll find all of the images posted have had significant PP performed on them to look the way they do, but they still have to be sharp and reasonably textured in the original for the final result to look the way it does. I'm sure your copy is great ricoh.pentax, but 'much' sharper than the DA*? You must have had a decentered or malfocusing copy of it.

12-17-2010, 02:14 PM	#90
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: JHD: In the Tammy thread Jewelltrail posted a number exceptionally spectacular images with his 17-50... I'm just wondering if they are straight out of the camera or if they were post processed to look the way they do? For example... JHD, I do not own Photo Shop or Lightroom. I do own a $100 copy of AE8, but only use it to correct my K20d's erratic, Auto White Balance. Mostly all of my PPing is done with free software--I use 3 different free programs. So I really can't get the max out of my Raw files--someday, I may purchase PS though.