[SlickYamaha]

So I have been in love with the 16-50 2.8 since day one, but spending $1,000+ on one lens never appealed to me one bit. (especially when others with the "same" (used lightly) specs go for $500 or less)

I had been THINKING about selling the 17-50 and the Pentax 18-55WR (came as a kit, and I already have the 18-135) in for a good chunk of change for the 16-50. but even then, I think im just over half on a USED one, not even close to 50% of a new one. I would guess the 17-50 and 18-55 would bring about $400-$450 together. Correct?

So, I know this lens is good, but without getting rid of any other lenses, is it worth getting the 16-50? I really dont use the 18-55WR, but its nice to have in case (last night left the camera out in the rain and got some lightning shots, better to sacrifice the 18-55 than the 18-135, just in case) And the Tamron would jsut be an even swap. (length and aperture value)

Im just afraid im going to sell 2 decent lenses, and fork out $400 just to get a used copy, and im not going to be able to tell a huge difference over the Tamron.

Any thoughts? is the 16-50 going to change the way I put my pants on in the morning, and is it really worth more than to cost of 2 17-50s?

[twitch]

Any thoughts? is the 16-50 going to change the way I put my pants on in the morning, and is it really worth more than to cost of 2 17-50s?

No it won't, if you have a "good" 17-50 there's no way in hell I'd be selling it to part fund a 16-50 unless you have a burning need for weather resistance.

[kenez]

Go here: Pentax SMC DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM - Review / Test Report and try to decide yourself, if you need this lens...

Don't ask me

[blackcloudbrew]

If you already have the 17-50 f2.8 keep it. It is a very good lens. OTOH, I've just completed a month shooting only with the kit lens (18-55WR) and honestly while it's 'ok' I find it uninspiring. The DA*16-50 f2.8 lens is - to me - simply my best lens and it's head and shoulders above the kit lens. Is it better than the Tammy 17-50? I think so but not enough to switch or tell I believe. If WR is an issue more than just a bit of the time when you could deal with the weather with an umbrella or weather resistant enclosure (aka plastic bag etc.), then stick with the Tammy.

[dgaies]

No it won't, if you have a "good" 17-50 there's no way in hell I'd be selling it to part fund a 16-50 unless you have a burning need for weather resistance.

I agree 100%.

I opted to go with the 18-135WR and Tamron 28-75 for the price of a 16-50 and have no regrets. I've owned the 16-50 a couple times over the past two years and I just never clicked with that lens. I've seen great results from the 16-50, but I personally think that when you consider the price, the reliability and the relatively slow AF speed, it's just not a lens I was particularly interested in keeping.

[SlickYamaha]

Ok, thank you. I need to be talked out of it. The WR is sooo appealing, but I think if Im going to be shooting in bad weather, Im not going to be doing it with a $1,100 lens.
I have read the reviews, and it sounds like an amazing lens, but when you read the 17-50 reviews, they sound the same. Just hard to compare the two.

I think the optimum set up for me would be two cameras, with a 16-50 on one, and a 50-135 on the other. but I would have to sell all my lenses to buy just those two... its hard to justify that.

[Ash]

Only you can judge whether the 16-50 is worth the extra cash, but to me unless you want decent weather sealing, it adds little value to a Tamron 17-50. It may be better built, but it is heavier, bulkier and prone to SDM failure.

I had one and loved it when I had it, but I knoew that one day it might cause me trouble and need repair.

[rvannatta]

No it won't, if you have a "good" 17-50 there's no way in hell I'd be selling it to part fund a 16-50 unless you have a burning need for weather resistance.

agreed. I have a 16-50 and use it extensively, and like it a lot. but I don't see cloning your tammy just because the DA* has a couple weather seals on it.

That becomes a very expensive "O-ring" If you have some cash burning a hole in your pocket, I would suggest a different direction. --- rather than duplicating what you have already consider a prime lens, a macro, or the 50-135 DA*

[SlickYamaha]

agreed. I have a 16-50 and use it extensively, and like it a lot. but I don't see cloning your tammy just because the DA* has a couple weather seals on it.

That becomes a very expensive "O-ring" If you have some cash burning a hole in your pocket, I would suggest a different direction. --- rather than duplicating what you have already consider a prime lens, a macro, or the 50-135 DA*

I wouldnt be cloning the lens, I would be selling the 17-50 Tammy to get the Pentax 16-50

[InlawBiker]

I lucked into a DA* 16-50 from an excellent Craigslist deal and I used it as my main lens for about 6 months. I thought it was a very good lens and I loved the silent focus. 16mm is pretty nice to have in a zoom. On the first day I had it I noticed the quality of the photos right away. But in the end I thought it was too heavy, and if I wanted to carry big heavy zoom lenses I may as well use a Canon.

The resale on them is not very good because of the SDM fears. And if you buy one used there's the risk that you're buying one of the bad ones. The fear of the SDM failure was always in the back of my mind too.

I have never used the Tamron and I'm not a very experienced photographer but if you're happy with the Tamron I would just keep it.

[Eagle_Friends]

You can get a used one for around 650 here in the forum every now and then.

[krp]

I think the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a great lens and you don't need to replace it. The only thing I don't like about it is the distortion at 17mm but I'm sure the Pentax 16-50 f2.8 has distortion too.

[northcoastgreg]

Like everyone else, I don't find WR a compelling reason to switch. After all, how useful is WR on a wide angle lens? Can you really shoot with it in the rain? How do you keep water off the front lens element? Is the lens hood long and deep enough to keep the water at bay? I have the DFA 100 wr and the DA* 300. WR makes sense with those lenses, because they have deep hoods that can keep the water off the front element.

Now if you actually prefer the IQ of the 16-50, that might be a legitimate reason to trade-up. But if you're fully satisfied with what you're getting out of the Tamron, there's no reason to switch.