Tamron 17-50 or Pentax DA18-135?

sterretje · 03-22-2011, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

28 is pretty damn narrow for an all-around on a crop-sensor camera.

That depends

I use a FA31Ltd as my walk around

deadwolfbones · 03-22-2011, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by sterretje

That depends

I use a FA31Ltd as my walk around

Sure, and that works for some people. But the OP is looking for a zoom, presumably because he wants to as many shooting scenarios as possible with a single lens. I wouldn't want to rule out the wide-angle stuff.

yurko_yr · 03-22-2011, 08:53 AM

Thanks a lot for all your opinions.
For wild angle I have DA15 that I really love. I need to cover FL between 15 and 43. One option was DA21, but I would really prefer zoom lens for this. I had never shoot with zoom lens, so yours suggestions are very helpful for me. Thanks a lot.
Best regards,
Yuriy

Jewelltrail · 03-22-2011, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Chex

I don't think I would be looking at the 17-50 when the 28-75 macro would probably be a better all around lens and can do double duty being able to shoot Macro. I'm sure after I get my 18-135 serviced it will be just fine. Having the WR lens to go on the K-5 for those wet days will be nice.

OP wants to do city & landscapes--I owned both Tamrons, & the 17-50 is far better range for this. Also, the 17-50 will close focus down to about 10" and does macro every bit as good as 28-75. Of course, neither lens is a Macro lens anyway.

Quote:

yurko_yr: I am shooting mostly landscapes and cityscapes.

paperbag846 · 03-22-2011, 02:08 PM

Get the Tamron. You won't feel the need to replace it, or buy primes in that focal range. With the super-zoom, it's going to be weaker at the extreme ends, and slower. You might end up spending more money with fast primes and the like.

The Tamron goes up to 50. There are a tonne of consumer zooms (70-200 ish) that are as slow as the 18-135, but they go much longer. In conjunction, the 17-50 + 70 - 200 won't be much more expensive (if at all).

An example is the F 70-210, which is great. I think they are pretty common at 100 bucks. There are a lot of lenses in that range too, so it would not be hard to find a good deal.

When I have the funds, my kit lens is going to become the Tamron.

yurko_yr · 03-22-2011, 03:43 PM

Thanks a lot. That is why I so like this forum. So many thing possible to learn from this community.
I think I will go for tamron lens. I have a telefoto covered and planning to buy few primes – 43 and 77. For wild angle DA15 is a miracle for me. I don’t think I will buy FA31 and do not want to buy DA35/2.4 as well as DA35 limited (had this lens – great one, but for some reason did not fit my sole). I am thinking to cover these FLs (20-40) with zoom. Tamron looks like the best option. I do not need an expensive zoom, because prefer primes. The only thing that bother me know is a QC of tamron lenses. I was thinking to buy from prodigital2000, but they have a tricky return policy, so probably BH or Adorama would be the best options. What would you tell?

paperbag846 · 03-22-2011, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by yurko_yr

prodigital2000, but they have a tricky return policy, so probably BH or Adorama would be the best options. What would you tell?

I would confirm with prodigital, if they are not going to be easy, then go with BH / Adorama.

You will likely have a good lens from the get go but it's not worth the risk for 50 bucks.

oliver939 · 03-22-2011, 05:32 PM

what about the sigma 17-70 (non OS) for a walk around lens?

It's seems cheap and has good reviews.
It'll have better IQ than 18-135 and a bot more range than 17-50.
Plus it's a macro lens

deadwolfbones · 03-22-2011, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by oliver939

what about the sigma 17-70 (non OS) for a walk around lens?

It's seems cheap and has good reviews.
It'll have better IQ than 18-135 and a bot more range than 17-50.
Plus it's a macro lens

It's not a macro lens. It has "macro" capability, which for a zoom means it focuses down to 1:4 or 1:5, typically. The Tamron has this as well.

The Sigma has a variable aperture and costs just as much as the Tamron. 20mm on the long end really isn't that much, either.

I've owned all three lenses. There's nothing wrong with the Sigma--it's a fine lens for what it is--but the Tamron is better in every way except for tele reach.

SpecialK · 03-22-2011, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

28 is pretty damn narrow for an all-around on a crop-sensor camera.

I tried the 28-75 as a single walk-around. I was backing up frequently, and running out of space. But, I like wide, and everyone is different.

yurko_yr · 03-26-2011, 07:55 PM

Dear Pentax Community,
Thank you for all your advises. This forum is a great source of knowledge and information.
So, I got a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and it looks like I really like it. The colors a great and the feeling of the lens is also very nice. The focus is fast and to my feeling quiet. However I tested the lens mounted on tripod and it looks like the upper corners are soft. Could you please tell if this is my error or it is really soft and I should exchange this for another copy?
Thank you in advance.
With the best regards,
Yuriy

yurko_yr · 03-26-2011, 07:57 PM

First picture – is center, second – upper left corner. Camera mounted on tripod, daylight, 35 mm, f 2.8.

Jewelltrail · 03-27-2011, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by yurko_yr

Dear Pentax Community,
Thank you for all your advises. This forum is a great source of knowledge and information.
So, I got a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and it looks like I really like it. The colors a great and the feeling of the lens is also very nice. The focus is fast and to my feeling quiet. However I tested the lens mounted on tripod and it looks like the upper corners are soft. Could you please tell if this is my error or it is really soft and I should exchange this for another copy?
Thank you in advance.
With the best regards,
Yuriy

Yuriy: I would be seriously skeptical about these results. When properly focused, I never got a real life shot with the 17-50 with anything but very good borders. @ f 2.8, this close on a tri-pod, DOF is so thin that you must have the test setup perfectly in order to have the corners of the shot in the same focus plane as the center of the image. Try shooting the lens in real life conditions, then look at the borders--they rival a prime. Have you seen Photozone's MTF scores on the lens?

jerrymouse · 03-27-2011, 01:09 AM

It's field curvate - see Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (Nikon) - Review / Test Report - Analysis paragraph MTF.

yurko_yr · 03-27-2011, 06:16 AM

Thanks a lot. I shoot some cityscapes today and corners looks sharp. It was my error during a test.
Thanks a lot for explanation.
Best regards,
Yuriy

03-26-2011, 07:55 PM	#26
yurko_yr Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Saarbrucken Photos: Gallery Posts: 332 Original Poster	Dear Pentax Community, Thank you for all your advises. This forum is a great source of knowledge and information. So, I got a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and it looks like I really like it. The colors a great and the feeling of the lens is also very nice. The focus is fast and to my feeling quiet. However I tested the lens mounted on tripod and it looks like the upper corners are soft. Could you please tell if this is my error or it is really soft and I should exchange this for another copy? Thank you in advance. With the best regards, Yuriy Attached Images

03-27-2011, 12:33 AM	#28
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Originally posted by yurko_yr Dear Pentax Community, Thank you for all your advises. This forum is a great source of knowledge and information. So, I got a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and it looks like I really like it. The colors a great and the feeling of the lens is also very nice. The focus is fast and to my feeling quiet. However I tested the lens mounted on tripod and it looks like the upper corners are soft. Could you please tell if this is my error or it is really soft and I should exchange this for another copy? Thank you in advance. With the best regards, Yuriy Yuriy: I would be seriously skeptical about these results. When properly focused, I never got a real life shot with the 17-50 with anything but very good borders. @ f 2.8, this close on a tri-pod, DOF is so thin that you must have the test setup perfectly in order to have the corners of the shot in the same focus plane as the center of the image. Try shooting the lens in real life conditions, then look at the borders--they rival a prime. Have you seen Photozone's MTF scores on the lens? Last edited by Jewelltrail; 03-27-2011 at 12:54 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA18-135 or DA18-250?	jatrax	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	04-25-2011 08:41 PM
DA18-135 => Satisfied	xGene	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	12-15-2010 02:17 PM
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 worth the upgrade over DA18-55mm WR?	secateurs	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	35	11-02-2010 12:37 PM
Pentax 55- 135 f2.8 Vs. Tamron 70 -200 f2.8	mikejustice	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	08-23-2009 09:27 AM

03-22-2011, 07:47 AM	#16
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Originally posted by deadwolfbones 28 is pretty damn narrow for an all-around on a crop-sensor camera. That depends I use a FA31Ltd as my walk around

03-22-2011, 08:05 AM	#17
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Santa Fe, NM Posts: 7,451	Originally posted by sterretje That depends I use a FA31Ltd as my walk around Sure, and that works for some people. But the OP is looking for a zoom, presumably because he wants to as many shooting scenarios as possible with a single lens. I wouldn't want to rule out the wide-angle stuff.

03-22-2011, 08:53 AM	#18
yurko_yr Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Saarbrucken Photos: Gallery Posts: 332 Original Poster	Thanks a lot for all your opinions. For wild angle I have DA15 that I really love. I need to cover FL between 15 and 43. One option was DA21, but I would really prefer zoom lens for this. I had never shoot with zoom lens, so yours suggestions are very helpful for me. Thanks a lot. Best regards, Yuriy

03-22-2011, 01:12 PM	#19
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Originally posted by Chex I don't think I would be looking at the 17-50 when the 28-75 macro would probably be a better all around lens and can do double duty being able to shoot Macro. I'm sure after I get my 18-135 serviced it will be just fine. Having the WR lens to go on the K-5 for those wet days will be nice. OP wants to do city & landscapes--I owned both Tamrons, & the 17-50 is far better range for this. Also, the 17-50 will close focus down to about 10" and does macro every bit as good as 28-75. Of course, neither lens is a Macro lens anyway. Quote: yurko_yr: I am shooting mostly landscapes and cityscapes.

03-22-2011, 02:08 PM	#20
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Get the Tamron. You won't feel the need to replace it, or buy primes in that focal range. With the super-zoom, it's going to be weaker at the extreme ends, and slower. You might end up spending more money with fast primes and the like. The Tamron goes up to 50. There are a tonne of consumer zooms (70-200 ish) that are as slow as the 18-135, but they go much longer. In conjunction, the 17-50 + 70 - 200 won't be much more expensive (if at all). An example is the F 70-210, which is great. I think they are pretty common at 100 bucks. There are a lot of lenses in that range too, so it would not be hard to find a good deal. When I have the funds, my kit lens is going to become the Tamron.

03-22-2011, 03:43 PM	#21
yurko_yr Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Saarbrucken Photos: Gallery Posts: 332 Original Poster	Thanks a lot. That is why I so like this forum. So many thing possible to learn from this community. I think I will go for tamron lens. I have a telefoto covered and planning to buy few primes – 43 and 77. For wild angle DA15 is a miracle for me. I don’t think I will buy FA31 and do not want to buy DA35/2.4 as well as DA35 limited (had this lens – great one, but for some reason did not fit my sole). I am thinking to cover these FLs (20-40) with zoom. Tamron looks like the best option. I do not need an expensive zoom, because prefer primes. The only thing that bother me know is a QC of tamron lenses. I was thinking to buy from prodigital2000, but they have a tricky return policy, so probably BH or Adorama would be the best options. What would you tell?

03-22-2011, 03:48 PM	#22
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by yurko_yr prodigital2000, but they have a tricky return policy, so probably BH or Adorama would be the best options. What would you tell? I would confirm with prodigital, if they are not going to be easy, then go with BH / Adorama. You will likely have a good lens from the get go but it's not worth the risk for 50 bucks.

03-22-2011, 05:32 PM	#23
oliver939 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: europe Posts: 156	what about the sigma 17-70 (non OS) for a walk around lens? It's seems cheap and has good reviews. It'll have better IQ than 18-135 and a bot more range than 17-50. Plus it's a macro lens

03-22-2011, 05:57 PM	#24
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Santa Fe, NM Posts: 7,451	Originally posted by oliver939 what about the sigma 17-70 (non OS) for a walk around lens? It's seems cheap and has good reviews. It'll have better IQ than 18-135 and a bot more range than 17-50. Plus it's a macro lens It's not a macro lens. It has "macro" capability, which for a zoom means it focuses down to 1:4 or 1:5, typically. The Tamron has this as well. The Sigma has a variable aperture and costs just as much as the Tamron. 20mm on the long end really isn't that much, either. I've owned all three lenses. There's nothing wrong with the Sigma--it's a fine lens for what it is--but the Tamron is better in every way except for tele reach.

03-22-2011, 09:47 PM	#25
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,482	Originally posted by deadwolfbones 28 is pretty damn narrow for an all-around on a crop-sensor camera. I tried the 28-75 as a single walk-around. I was backing up frequently, and running out of space. But, I like wide, and everyone is different.

03-26-2011, 07:57 PM	#27
yurko_yr Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Saarbrucken Photos: Gallery Posts: 332 Original Poster	First picture – is center, second – upper left corner. Camera mounted on tripod, daylight, 35 mm, f 2.8.

03-27-2011, 01:09 AM	#29
jerrymouse Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Pilsen, Czech Republic Posts: 224	It's field curvate - see Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (Nikon) - Review / Test Report - Analysis paragraph MTF.

03-27-2011, 06:16 AM	#30
yurko_yr Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Saarbrucken Photos: Gallery Posts: 332 Original Poster	Thanks a lot. I shoot some cityscapes today and corners looks sharp. It was my error during a test. Thanks a lot for explanation. Best regards, Yuriy