Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-16-2011, 08:16 AM   #16
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 61
The Sigma 17-50/2.8 is twice the price of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 so if it is not the slightest bit better then it would be a bad choice of Sigma.

Have not tried the Sigma yet but do have the 28-75/2.8 from Tamron. That is a real sharp lens and has come in handy at many occasions. The 16-45/4 from Pentax may be a bit slower but using it at 16mm makes up for the higher aperture by being able to user longer exposure times.

Only if the Sigma 17-50/2.8 has stellar performance at 2.8 i would be considering buying it.

In short, Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a great replacement for the standard zoom within most people's budget.
The latest 18-135 from Pentax might be an even better replacement due to more zoom and having WR.

01-16-2011, 08:27 AM   #17
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by jan rinze Quote
The Sigma 17-50/2.8 is twice the price of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 so if it is not the slightest bit better then it would be a bad choice of Sigma.

Have not tried the Sigma yet but do have the 28-75/2.8 from Tamron. That is a real sharp lens and has come in handy at many occasions. The 16-45/4 from Pentax may be a bit slower but using it at 16mm makes up for the higher aperture by being able to user longer exposure times.

Only if the Sigma 17-50/2.8 has stellar performance at 2.8 i would be considering buying it.

In short, Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a great replacement for the standard zoom within most people's budget.
The latest 18-135 from Pentax might be an even better replacement due to more zoom and having WR.
The Sigma is not twice the price of the Tamron - over here it is only $100 difference but in the USA I believe it's $200, still no-where near twice the price. Both are excellent lenses.

Sorry Jan but a variable zoom of 18-135 and 3.5 to 5.6 aperture is not a better lense than a fixed f2.8 unless the only thing you need is the zoom & WR and you don't have the cash for better lenses.
01-16-2011, 09:32 AM   #18
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by musicman9294 Quote
I'm reading in a lot of places now that the new Sigma 17-50 2.8 is better than the Tamron 17-50 2.8.. hm.
I was looking at that until I found out it is almost 2.5x more costly than the Tammy 17-50. In that range I already have a Sigma 17-70, a Sigma 30/1.4 and a DA40. So I'm wondering if it will be worthwhile getting another lens in that range?
01-16-2011, 09:36 AM   #19
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
The Sigma is not twice the price of the Tamron - over here it is only $100 difference...
Gasp! here in Canada it's $900 while the Tamron is $369. Sure wish I lived in Shanghai...

Looked at the Photozone review for the Sigma, it's MTF numbers are off the charts!

01-16-2011, 12:28 PM   #20
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by JHD Quote
Gasp! here in Canada it's $900 while the Tamron is $369. Sure wish I lived in Shanghai...

Looked at the Photozone review for the Sigma, it's MTF numbers are off the charts!
Oops my RMB exchange calculations a little off but still not that huge a difference !

Tamron (I paid) ca. US$350
Sigma (not in stock) ca. US$510
01-16-2011, 04:05 PM   #21
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
Sigma (not in stock) ca. US$510
$510 is a far cry from $900. If I had the that option I think I'd take the Sigma over the Tamron.
01-16-2011, 07:44 PM   #22
Pentaxian
liukaitc's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,005
There is a sigma 24-60 f2.8.. and the least expensive one among those zoom f2.8 lens I think. review is great. you check out online. but not so much avaliable on the market I think.
01-16-2011, 08:34 PM   #23
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
I own both lenses and have taken many, many thousands of shots, especially with the 17-50. The 2 lenses perform very similarly. Your choice depends solely upon the more valuable focal length for the situation.

Also, keep in mind you can crop a lot with the 17-50mm to get more tele, but you can not crop with the 28-75 to get wider, unless you stitch. Another consideration, due to the 28-75's intended application for Full-Frame, is it handles vignetting better than the 17-50--Wide Open.

MTF numbers for the 2 lenses are very close to one another. IMO, the 17-50 has a little better build quality than the 28-75, but the 28-75 will serve Full Frame properly.

01-16-2011, 09:36 PM   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 258
I also own both, the 28-75mm is shaper at with open, but the 17-55mm is more useful.
01-17-2011, 03:55 AM   #25
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
The Sigma is not twice the price of the Tamron - over here it is only $100 difference but in the USA I believe it's $200, still no-where near twice the price. Both are excellent lenses.

Sorry Jan but a variable zoom of 18-135 and 3.5 to 5.6 aperture is not a better lense than a fixed f2.8 unless the only thing you need is the zoom & WR and you don't have the cash for better lenses.
Frogfish, i wish you were right. Just checked pricing for the Tamron (~300 euro) and the Sigma (~600 euro) here.
Also my recommendation of the 18-135 as a standard lens replacement needs some consideration. It will give a wide range plus WR. By no means the same thing as the 2.8 zooms but intended for a quite different use case.
01-17-2011, 05:32 AM   #26
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by jan rinze Quote
Frogfish, i wish you were right. Just checked pricing for the Tamron (~300 euro) and the Sigma (~600 euro) here.
Also my recommendation of the 18-135 as a standard lens replacement needs some consideration. It will give a wide range plus WR. By no means the same thing as the 2.8 zooms but intended for a quite different use case.
I feel for you Jan ! I don't know how the variation in pricing is so much (see my post above). I realised after I posted that you were probably suggesting an alternative direction.
01-17-2011, 09:16 AM   #27
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
winglik: I also own both, the 28-75mm is shaper at with open, but the 17-55mm is more useful.
The more useful lens depends simply upon this: does the user more value the 17-27mm range, or the 51-75mm--this is the bottom line in this thread.

My 17-50 is sharper wide oipen.
01-19-2011, 12:12 PM   #28
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dawg Country
Posts: 41
I own the 28-75 tamron.

I use it almost exclusively as a semi professional for seniors, family portraits and whatnot. It is a great lens.

I wouldn't mind if it was a little wider, though.
01-20-2011, 12:49 AM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bangalore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,435
I own both and might sell 17-50 since I ended up using 28-75 a bit more. 28-75 is sharper wide open but 17-50 is no slouch either. Below are wide open pics from my 28-75 and 17-50

17-50@f2.8 - off course 28-75 would not have been able to capture this.


17-50@f2.8 - Sun was really harsh - washing away image but you can still see how sharp this lens is


28-75@f2.8 - Amazing for portraits
01-20-2011, 02:11 AM   #30
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by SALUKIS97 Quote
I own the 28-75 tamron.

I use it almost exclusively as a semi professional for seniors, family portraits and whatnot. It is a great lens.

I wouldn't mind if it was a little wider, though.
Yep - both great lenses, if they were combined in an 17-70/2.8 we'd all be ecstatic I imagine.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens, tamron, tamron 17-50mm
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 not as fast (bright) as Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 on Pentax K-x, PICS Edgar_in_Indy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 38 01-10-2011 04:09 PM
lens comparison- fa50mm / tamron 17-50mm / tamron 28-75mm bimjo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 03-16-2010 01:10 AM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD for Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR LD deadwolfbones Sold Items 5 11-03-2009 10:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:52 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top