Tamron 17-50 F2.8 vs DA*16-50

gflauti · 07-14-2011, 02:29 PM

I would buy the Tamron 17-50 for my k-x.

DA*16-50 is the most actractive alternative.

I don't need sealing and I prefere a screw driven autofocus. Tamron is also lighter and smaller than DA*.

Wich is the difference in terms of IQ and colors betwen DA* and Tamron?
Pro/cons about Tamron?

Thanks

Pentaxor · 07-14-2011, 03:19 PM

why not the Sigma 17-50? they almost cost the same as the Tamron.

Ubuntu_user · 07-14-2011, 04:08 PM

Get the Sigma 17-50mm like Pentaxor recommends. I do believe that it has the best IQ. And of course, it's AF is the fastest.

jimr-pdx · 07-14-2011, 04:09 PM

And the DA16-45 should be tossed in as well. They occasionally pop up quite cheaply and give excellent results. I'm on my 2nd copy of the DA16-45 after trying WR kit lens, then 17-70 and 18-50 HSM/OS Sigmas.

The one consistent 'con' I hear with the Tamron is field curvature - if you shoot a flat object square on the edges will be out of focus and therefore soft. Everything else seems to be a 'pro' with that lens.

civiletti · 07-14-2011, 04:34 PM

I think the Tamron will have the best IQ by a bit, but the Sigma should focus more quickly and quietly. Both should have a little better IQ than the DA*. The Tamron is much less expensive than the others. I am testing it as a replacement for manually focussed primes. It's that good.

The Tamron does have curvature of field at 17mm, which can be a problem with some scenes, especially wide open. I do not know yet how serious that will be inmy field use.

Doanh · 07-14-2011, 05:55 PM

I have all 3: Sigma 18-50 EX DC Macro, DA* 16-50, and Tamron 17-50. They are all very good lenses. The Pentax is pretty much better than the Sigma in all aspects except for focusing speed. The Tammy is no slough; not as sharp in center but better at corner. Pentax is better for outdoor due to WR.

gflauti · 07-15-2011, 02:06 PM

Thanks for answers.
A lot of people say that Tamron has a better IQ with respect to Sigma.
So I didn't considered Sigma until now...

jezza323 · 07-15-2011, 02:17 PM

I havent had the Sigma or the Pentax so make of my comments as you will, but I am VERY happy with my Tamron. I have not had a single instance where something about the lens has let me down. I find it sharp and contrasty enough at all zooms and apertures for my requirements (I am no pixel peeper, just a shooter). I have no hesitation in recommending it to anyone

You can see some of my shots with this lens here on my blog, and here on flickr

gflauti · 07-15-2011, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by jezza323

I havent had the Sigma or the Pentax so make of my comments as you will, but I am VERY happy with my Tamron. I have not had a single instance where something about the lens has let me down. I find it sharp and contrasty enough at all zooms and apertures for my requirements (I am no pixel peeper, just a shooter). I have no hesitation in recommending it to anyone

You can see some of my shots with this lens here on my blog, and here on flickr

Very nice pictures!
I saw you didn't take portraits. Do you think that Tamron @50mm and F2.8 can replace my FA 50 1.4 for portraits?

jezza323 · 07-15-2011, 02:53 PM

I dont really do portraits, but that depends. I would guess in most cases 50mm f2.8 would not give shallow enough DOF for most portrait work.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 07-15-2011, 04:20 PM

Here's a review where the Tamron gets compared to other lenses:

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF Lens Review

The Tamron is a very safe choice. It's pretty much a prime killer - except at 50, where it is just 2.8. You'd have trouble finding faster wide angles in its range and if you do they'd cost more than the Tamron - each.

jezza323 · 07-16-2011, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

The Tamron is a very safe choice. It's pretty much a prime killer - except at 50, where it is just 2.8. You'd have trouble finding faster wide angles in its range and if you do they'd cost more than the Tamron - each.

good point. dont get me wrong though, i also have the sigma 30mm f1.4 and i wouldnt give it up either, hehe

but for the price the tamron is very hard to beat IMO. i think i only paid about $300 incl shipping for a brand new copy on ebay thanks to some paypal vouchers n stuff

**Ahab** · 07-16-2011, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by gflauti

Thanks for answers.
A lot of people say that Tamron has a better IQ with respect to Sigma.
So I didn't considered Sigma until now...

I found the Tammy to be better than the Sigma too.

gflauti · 07-16-2011, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by jezza323

I dont really do portraits, but that depends. I would guess in most cases 50mm f2.8 would not give shallow enough DOF for most portrait work.

Very often I use my FA50mm @ F2.8 for portraits.
So for my "picture style" 2.8 should be enough.

I don't know if Tamron can give comparable results in terms of bokeh

Laurentiu Cristofor · 07-16-2011, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by jezza323

good point. dont get me wrong though, i also have the sigma 30mm f1.4 and i wouldnt give it up either, hehe

but for the price the tamron is very hard to beat IMO. i think i only paid about $300 incl shipping for a brand new copy on ebay thanks to some paypal vouchers n stuff

Anything faster than 2.8 and wider than 40mm is not threatened by the Tamron. That Sigma 30/1.4 appears to be a very nice lens from what I've seen. As for the Tamron, like you mentioned, buying it second hand can mean even larger cost savings.

07-14-2011, 02:29 PM	#1
gflauti Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Naples (IT) Photos: Albums Posts: 44	*Tamron 17-50 F2.8 vs DA16-50** I would buy the Tamron 17-50 for my k-x. DA16-50 is the most actractive alternative. I don't need sealing and I prefere a screw driven autofocus. Tamron is also lighter and smaller than DA. Wich is the difference in terms of IQ and colors betwen DA* and Tamron? Pro/cons about Tamron? Thanks

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: K10D, Tamron 28-75 F2.8, Tamron 75-300 F4-5.6, Super-Tak 50/1.4, AF-360 Flash	maconmatt	Sold Items	5	10-25-2010 06:18 AM
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
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K100d + 18-55mm + Tamron 70-300mm; Tamron 90mm Macro	jake123	Sold Items	4	11-09-2009 12:51 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron SP 70-210mm f/3.5, Tamron SP 28-135mm f/4.0-4.5 28A, Tamron pk/a adapta	hinman	Sold Items	14	05-08-2009 05:35 PM

07-14-2011, 03:19 PM	#2
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	why not the Sigma 17-50? they almost cost the same as the Tamron.

07-14-2011, 04:08 PM	#3
Ubuntu_user Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,545	Get the Sigma 17-50mm like Pentaxor recommends. I do believe that it has the best IQ. And of course, it's AF is the fastest.

07-14-2011, 04:09 PM	#4
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	And the DA16-45 should be tossed in as well. They occasionally pop up quite cheaply and give excellent results. I'm on my 2nd copy of the DA16-45 after trying WR kit lens, then 17-70 and 18-50 HSM/OS Sigmas. The one consistent 'con' I hear with the Tamron is field curvature - if you shoot a flat object square on the edges will be out of focus and therefore soft. Everything else seems to be a 'pro' with that lens.

07-14-2011, 04:34 PM	#5
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	I think the Tamron will have the best IQ by a bit, but the Sigma should focus more quickly and quietly. Both should have a little better IQ than the DA*. The Tamron is much less expensive than the others. I am testing it as a replacement for manually focussed primes. It's that good. The Tamron does have curvature of field at 17mm, which can be a problem with some scenes, especially wide open. I do not know yet how serious that will be inmy field use.

07-14-2011, 05:55 PM	#6
Doanh Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Posts: 247	I have all 3: Sigma 18-50 EX DC Macro, DA* 16-50, and Tamron 17-50. They are all very good lenses. The Pentax is pretty much better than the Sigma in all aspects except for focusing speed. The Tammy is no slough; not as sharp in center but better at corner. Pentax is better for outdoor due to WR.

07-15-2011, 02:06 PM	#7
gflauti Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Naples (IT) Photos: Albums Posts: 44 Original Poster	Thanks for answers. A lot of people say that Tamron has a better IQ with respect to Sigma. So I didn't considered Sigma until now...

07-15-2011, 02:17 PM	#8
jezza323 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,421	I havent had the Sigma or the Pentax so make of my comments as you will, but I am VERY happy with my Tamron. I have not had a single instance where something about the lens has let me down. I find it sharp and contrasty enough at all zooms and apertures for my requirements (I am no pixel peeper, just a shooter). I have no hesitation in recommending it to anyone You can see some of my shots with this lens here on my blog, and here on flickr

07-15-2011, 02:42 PM	#9
gflauti Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Naples (IT) Photos: Albums Posts: 44 Original Poster	Originally posted by jezza323 I havent had the Sigma or the Pentax so make of my comments as you will, but I am VERY happy with my Tamron. I have not had a single instance where something about the lens has let me down. I find it sharp and contrasty enough at all zooms and apertures for my requirements (I am no pixel peeper, just a shooter). I have no hesitation in recommending it to anyone You can see some of my shots with this lens here on my blog, and here on flickr Very nice pictures! I saw you didn't take portraits. Do you think that Tamron @50mm and F2.8 can replace my FA 50 1.4 for portraits?

07-15-2011, 02:53 PM	#10
jezza323 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,421	I dont really do portraits, but that depends. I would guess in most cases 50mm f2.8 would not give shallow enough DOF for most portrait work.

07-15-2011, 04:20 PM	#11
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Here's a review where the Tamron gets compared to other lenses: Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF Lens Review The Tamron is a very safe choice. It's pretty much a prime killer - except at 50, where it is just 2.8. You'd have trouble finding faster wide angles in its range and if you do they'd cost more than the Tamron - each.

07-16-2011, 04:27 AM	#12
jezza323 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,421	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor The Tamron is a very safe choice. It's pretty much a prime killer - except at 50, where it is just 2.8. You'd have trouble finding faster wide angles in its range and if you do they'd cost more than the Tamron - each. good point. dont get me wrong though, i also have the sigma 30mm f1.4 and i wouldnt give it up either, hehe but for the price the tamron is very hard to beat IMO. i think i only paid about $300 incl shipping for a brand new copy on ebay thanks to some paypal vouchers n stuff

07-16-2011, 07:04 AM	#13
Ahab Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Arnold, Md. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 762	Originally posted by gflauti Thanks for answers. A lot of people say that Tamron has a better IQ with respect to Sigma. So I didn't considered Sigma until now... I found the Tammy to be better than the Sigma too.

07-16-2011, 02:43 PM	#14
gflauti Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Naples (IT) Photos: Albums Posts: 44 Original Poster	Originally posted by jezza323 I dont really do portraits, but that depends. I would guess in most cases 50mm f2.8 would not give shallow enough DOF for most portrait work. Very often I use my FA50mm @ F2.8 for portraits. So for my "picture style" 2.8 should be enough. I don't know if Tamron can give comparable results in terms of bokeh

07-16-2011, 03:23 PM	#15
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by jezza323 good point. dont get me wrong though, i also have the sigma 30mm f1.4 and i wouldnt give it up either, hehe but for the price the tamron is very hard to beat IMO. i think i only paid about $300 incl shipping for a brand new copy on ebay thanks to some paypal vouchers n stuff Anything faster than 2.8 and wider than 40mm is not threatened by the Tamron. That Sigma 30/1.4 appears to be a very nice lens from what I've seen. As for the Tamron, like you mentioned, buying it second hand can mean even larger cost savings.