Decisions decisions!!! Low range zoom

JHD · 02-02-2011, 05:55 PM

Even though the 16-50 is almost 3x more money, when your Tamron comes back repaired, it might not be a bad idea to mount the camera on a tripod and take a series of test images with both lenses. A lens shootout if you will...

GaryH · 02-02-2011, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by ve2vfd

UPDATE!

Bought the DA*60-250 (2yr Pentax Canada warranty)
Just ordered the DA*16-50 (comes with 2yr Pentax Canada warranty + 7yr MACK warranty so SDM issues should be )
DA10-17mm... a fish-eye just for fun!

Pat

Good decision. I think you will really like the 16-50. It is rather large but a good copy (which a new one should be) will give great results. I am interested in knowing how you like the 60-250 also. I have been toying with the idea of selling my 50-135 and 55-300 and getting the 60-250. I just bought the da*300 and I really like its IQ. I think the 16-50 and the 60-250 would make a great high quality travel kit.

The 10-17 is always in my travel kit these days. It is a really great little lens.

twitch · 02-06-2011, 03:17 PM

If you're not really an ultra wide person, the 10-17 is a big leap. Why not get the DA 12-24 instead, it's a far more versatile lens than a 10-17, and no where near as wide (the 17 long end is about the same FOV as the 12 short end of the 12-24).

Wide lens aren't that hard to use; you just need to get right up close a foreground object of interest, and frame the scene to exclude ugly background objects. Easy

Loren E · 02-06-2011, 03:41 PM

After looking at a lot of shots with the 10-17 FE and the 12-24 I decided I am soon going to get the sigma 8-16, definitely an alternative to think about on the UWA front, and its focal range fits in really nicely with the 16-50.

twitch · 02-07-2011, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Loren E

After looking at a lot of shots with the 10-17 FE and the 12-24 I decided I am soon going to get the sigma 8-16, definitely an alternative to think about on the UWA front, and its focal range fits in really nicely with the 16-50.

True, but IMHO that range is a lot less versatile. Well that's why I bought the 12-24 anyway rather than the 8-16, it's wide enough for landscapes and tight urban streets and lanes, but it's long enough to take pictures of people without distorting them, so it's usable as a walk around zoom.

ve2vfd · 02-09-2011, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by JHD

when your Tamron comes back repaired, it might not be a bad idea to mount the camera on a tripod and take a series of test

I'll probably do that. I have to say that just playing around the new DA*16-50 I already see a difference... DA*16-50 + K5d = combo so sharp you can almost shave with it!

Originally posted by GaryH

Good decision. I think you will really like the 16-50. It is rather large but a good copy (which a new one should be) will give great results. I am interested in knowing how you like the 60-250 also.

You are right! The 16-50 is scary sharp! Size wise it's not really much larger than the Tammy. I have not had time to play around with either of my new DA*'s as I just got my K5d back monday but with the limited messing around I've done with my 60-250 I like what I see up to now.

Originally posted by twitch

If you're not really an ultra wide person, the 10-17 is a big leap.

Honestly I am not very interested in an ultra-wide lens, the reason I am looking at the 10-17 is for it's fish-eye fun quirky effect.

Pat

simico · 02-10-2011, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by ve2vfd

You are right! The 16-50 is scary sharp!

At what focal length and aperture? Can you show a full size pic or 100% crop?
Maybe I just have a bad copy, because it isn't really sharp at 2.8 or 4 aperture... DA 17-70 was sharper at the same FLs and apertures, not to mention my Sigma 30 is much sharper even wide open at 1.4.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Decisions, Decisions DA15mm or DA40mm	Colorado CJ	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	11-22-2010 06:32 PM
Coming back to Pentax....decisions, decisions	jgmankos	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	04-20-2010 08:05 PM
Decisions decisions!	PeterPP	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	19	05-28-2009 09:57 PM
Decisions, decisions, decisions.....	Mallee Boy	Post Your Photos!	10	04-22-2009 07:55 PM
Decisions, decisions...... oh, the decisions...!	Derridale	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	04-30-2008 05:02 PM

02-02-2011, 05:55 PM	#16
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Even though the 16-50 is almost 3x more money, when your Tamron comes back repaired, it might not be a bad idea to mount the camera on a tripod and take a series of test images with both lenses. A lens shootout if you will...

02-02-2011, 06:36 PM	#17
GaryH Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Philadelphia, Pa Photos: Gallery Posts: 764	Originally posted by ve2vfd UPDATE! Bought the DA60-250 (2yr Pentax Canada warranty) Just ordered the DA16-50 (comes with 2yr Pentax Canada warranty + 7yr MACK warranty so SDM issues should be ) DA10-17mm... a fish-eye just for fun! Pat Good decision. I think you will really like the 16-50. It is rather large but a good copy (which a new one should be) will give great results. I am interested in knowing how you like the 60-250 also. I have been toying with the idea of selling my 50-135 and 55-300 and getting the 60-250. I just bought the da*300 and I really like its IQ. I think the 16-50 and the 60-250 would make a great high quality travel kit. The 10-17 is always in my travel kit these days. It is a really great little lens.

02-06-2011, 03:17 PM	#18
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	If you're not really an ultra wide person, the 10-17 is a big leap. Why not get the DA 12-24 instead, it's a far more versatile lens than a 10-17, and no where near as wide (the 17 long end is about the same FOV as the 12 short end of the 12-24). Wide lens aren't that hard to use; you just need to get right up close a foreground object of interest, and frame the scene to exclude ugly background objects. Easy

02-06-2011, 03:41 PM	#19
Loren E Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Washington and California Posts: 274	After looking at a lot of shots with the 10-17 FE and the 12-24 I decided I am soon going to get the sigma 8-16, definitely an alternative to think about on the UWA front, and its focal range fits in really nicely with the 16-50.

02-07-2011, 03:07 PM	#20
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by Loren E After looking at a lot of shots with the 10-17 FE and the 12-24 I decided I am soon going to get the sigma 8-16, definitely an alternative to think about on the UWA front, and its focal range fits in really nicely with the 16-50. True, but IMHO that range is a lot less versatile. Well that's why I bought the 12-24 anyway rather than the 8-16, it's wide enough for landscapes and tight urban streets and lanes, but it's long enough to take pictures of people without distorting them, so it's usable as a walk around zoom.

02-09-2011, 06:34 AM	#21
ve2vfd Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Montreal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,433 Original Poster	Originally posted by JHD when your Tamron comes back repaired, it might not be a bad idea to mount the camera on a tripod and take a series of test I'll probably do that. I have to say that just playing around the new DA16-50 I already see a difference... DA16-50 + K5d = combo so sharp you can almost shave with it! Originally posted by GaryH Good decision. I think you will really like the 16-50. It is rather large but a good copy (which a new one should be) will give great results. I am interested in knowing how you like the 60-250 also. You are right! The 16-50 is scary sharp! Size wise it's not really much larger than the Tammy. I have not had time to play around with either of my new DA*'s as I just got my K5d back monday but with the limited messing around I've done with my 60-250 I like what I see up to now. Originally posted by twitch If you're not really an ultra wide person, the 10-17 is a big leap. Honestly I am not very interested in an ultra-wide lens, the reason I am looking at the 10-17 is for it's fish-eye fun quirky effect. Pat

02-10-2011, 02:03 AM	#22
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	Originally posted by ve2vfd You are right! The 16-50 is scary sharp! At what focal length and aperture? Can you show a full size pic or 100% crop? Maybe I just have a bad copy, because it isn't really sharp at 2.8 or 4 aperture... DA 17-70 was sharper at the same FLs and apertures, not to mention my Sigma 30 is much sharper even wide open at 1.4.