[mde1970]

Hi,

I'm looking for a wide (ish) lens as the kit lens with my K-m has developed a fault. Current contenders in my budget are the Pentax 16-45 or the Tamron 17-50.

Searching the Lens database the Pentax has some very good reviews but so does the Tamron. The Pentax is quite a bit older (2003 I think) and can still find them going for about £250 online (new) while I can pickup the Tamron for approx £300 in a local camera shop.

So far I think the Tamron may be a better buy due to the larger appature range (2.8 - 32) but would apprechiate any advise :-)

cheers for any replies.

mark

[JinDesu]

Generally the Tamron is considered sharper, better than even the 16-50.

[K57XR]

I had the DA16-45 for a while before replacing it with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 because I wanted a faster lens in this focal range....I don't miss the 16-45 at all. DA*16-50 is too expensive for my taste and wasn’t really an option. IQ of the 16-45 is quite impressive and definitely outperforms my 18-55mm; however, the Tammy is in a different league altogether in comparison and some reviews I've read even put it ahead of the 16-50 in terms of IQ. (I cannot comment on that since I don't have experience with the DA*) The only thing about the 17-50 is it tends to underexpose, although this shouldn't be much of an issue if you shoot RAW. Both are great values for their respective price range.

Between the two you mentioned, if it’s within your budget I’d say go for the Tamron. Hope this helps!

[mlatour]

If the store has a few copies of the Tamron, ask to test them all on your K-m body before buying as this lens sometimes has front/back focus issues.
Once you find a 'better' copy that focuses best with your body, you'll enjoy a very sharp/fast lens compared to your old kit lens.

Michel

[mde1970]

Cheers all for the replies. Looks like a unanimous verdict, so the Tamron it is.

[Unsinkable II]

+1 for the Tammy.

I got the non-VC version as the camera can take care of that, plus it's smaller, lighter and cheaper.

Only £195 new here in Hong Kong:

Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (A16) - Lens ?? - ???? - ????? Price.com.hk

[Ynadath]

Tamron has good image quality, and better border performance (my copy seems OK). Sharp, and it has F2.8. If you manage to get one, you won't be disappointed!

[civiletti]

I have not used the Pentax, but am quite impressed with the Tamron 17-50. It has as good IQ as many of my prime lenses at similar focal length.

[Alizarine]

Good thing this thread came up, I want to ask, for those who have had experience with both lenses, which lens renders colors better/more accurately? Thanks in advance!

[kent]

16-45 is impressive in terms of IQ. However 2.8 is 2.8 and extra 5mm is advantage.

[Alizarine]

16-45 is impressive in terms of IQ. However 2.8 is 2.8 and extra 5mm is advantage.

The prob I've been hearing about the Tamron are issues of front/back focusing. Are these issues that common? Or are these issues body-dependent?
Because so far every AF 2.8 lens or higher has back-focused on my K-x.... especially in low light (it gets further back the less ambient light there is)

[msatlas]

My Tamron 17-50 required a -5 AF fine adjustment on my K-r. When I had a K-x, I thought the lens was a dud because I could never get sharp results. So on a body without AF fine adjustment you may be gambling a bit.

[Malsi]

Hi,

+1 for the Tamron definitely ! Just be carefull. The tamron, even new, can suffer from an important back or front focus. If you have the possibility, take a copy with warranty. If not, test it.

Regards.

Malsi

[pacerr]

I've replaced my DA 16-45 with a Tamron SP AF 17-35/f2.8-4 (A05). Does everything the DA 16-45 did with faster aperture and the benefits of using a FF lens.

It can sometimes be found new at half the price of a new AF 17-50 or a used DA 16-45. For me, it's a perfect fit between the SP AF 10-24 and the SP AF 28-75 for rural landscapes.

H2

[Alizarine]

Guess I'd have to try to see for myself... but it seems I'll be picking the Tamron this time.