Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-08-2011, 12:30 PM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Eastern Kentucky
Posts: 416
constant 2.8

Looking to replace a da 18-55 with something with a constant 2.8 with equal to or better quality than the da.Could get by with one at 28mm on the short end,price is important and will probably buy used.
Thanks,
Jake

12-08-2011, 12:43 PM   #2
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: hobart
Posts: 40
Just be careful with getting a zoom lens in the 18-55mm range at f2.8.
I have a Tamaron 17-50mm constant f2.8 and I think it's very soft and blurry at f2.8 but very sharp at f5.6 and above, it might be a faulty lens but if you do decide on getting a zoom lens at least try it out first before you buy and try taking a few photos at f2.8 and see if it's not too soft for you.
12-08-2011, 12:46 PM   #3
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,626
Sigma's 17-50 2.8 is the sharpest in that range, afaik. However it's also the most expensive. Tamron's 17-50 has great reviews, but is softer and louder. Pentax's 16-50 is more expensive, not as sharp, but is WR and also has SDM.

Sigma's 24-70 2.8 is sharper than the 17-50, but also more expensive. Tamron's 28-75 is as sharp, quite a LOT cheaper, but doesn't have that ultrasonic motor. Pentax's FA 24-70? is supposed to be as good as anything else, but is expensive and I don't know how often you see those on market.
12-08-2011, 01:03 PM   #4
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wiltshire/Hampshire
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,749
Just for a different point of view... I'd massivley disagree with that. My Tamron 17-50/2.8 is sharp (in the centre at least) wide open, and from f/4 onwards is pretty much indistinguishable from a prime, although it is slightly worse at the long end than the short.

See full-size images at Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - a set on Flickr

QuoteOriginally posted by ross Quote
Just be careful with getting a zoom lens in the 18-55mm range at f2.8.
I have a Tamaron 17-50mm constant f2.8 and I think it's very soft and blurry at f2.8 but very sharp at f5.6 and above, it might be a faulty lens but if you do decide on getting a zoom lens at least try it out first before you buy and try taking a few photos at f2.8 and see if it's not too soft for you.


12-08-2011, 01:59 PM   #5
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
Why is SDM put forth as desirable when it has reliability problems and emerging evidence is that it is not necessarily faster to focus?
12-08-2011, 02:06 PM   #6
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,626
It's quiet. If it doesn't break down, it's nicer to work with than the screw drive. So hope for a good copy of the lens.
12-08-2011, 02:17 PM   #7
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,030
DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm Comparison - Introduction

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

12-08-2011, 04:13 PM   #8
Site Supporter
psychdoc's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bham
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 943
QuoteOriginally posted by bjake Quote
Could get by with one at 28mm on the short end,price is important and will probably buy used.
Tamron 28-75 maybe it:
28mm on the short end-yup
price-yup
And its sharp. And not too heavy.

12-08-2011, 04:26 PM   #9
Site Supporter
K57XR's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 828
QuoteOriginally posted by bjake Quote
Looking to replace a da 18-55 with something with a constant 2.8 with equal to or better quality than the da.Could get by with one at 28mm on the short end,price is important and will probably buy used.
Thanks,
Jake
I had both the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the 28-75 f2.8 at one point. IMO, IQ for either lens is on a league of their own with the latter edging the former. The 17-50 tends to underexpose, at least on my K-x. Unfortunately, my experiences with Tamron quality have been less than perfect. The 28-75 had incorrect FL on exif where it showed either 35mm or 55mm throughout entire FL range regardless. The 17-50, I went through two copies before finally deciding against a third. The first one was contaminated while the second/replacement had severe de-centering issue. My suggestion is to make sure to buy from a source with a return or exchange policy.

I do have my eye on the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. It's just a little off my budget at this point.
12-08-2011, 06:44 PM   #10
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Montreal
Posts: 197
OP mentionned looking for a used lens/not too expensive:

my choices would either be:

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
(look to buy from a knowledgeable photographer who's tested and picked a good copy)

or a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro (non-HSM)

perhaps even a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro (non-HSM) also but in my experience
it tends to flare more than above lenses, is huge and takes expensive 82mm filters.

The Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, sounds like a great lens but 28mm (for me) is just not wide enough.

I used a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 for a while last summer and sold it, went back to a 17-50mm for my main lens.
Really missed the 18 to 24mm range at the wide end, something to consider if you are used to shooting with your DA 18-55mm

Last edited by mlatour; 12-08-2011 at 10:29 PM.
12-09-2011, 04:20 AM   #11
Veteran Member
steve1307's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,129
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
Why is SDM put forth as desirable when it has reliability problems and emerging evidence is that it is not necessarily faster to focus?
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
It's quiet. If it doesn't break down, it's nicer to work with than the screw drive. So hope for a good copy of the lens.
Its extremely quiet if it DOES break down.


As reviews go on these lenses this is a good read, very thorough, as far as you can practically get with a single copy of each.

I don't want any of these 3 lenses but if I was to pick one it would be the Tamron and buy it from somewhere like B&H or Adorama which allows 7 day return after checking it out.
Just as good as the the other 2 in therms of IQ, Its the lightest, cheapest and takes the cheapest filters unless you've already got 77's
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
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there such thing as a 17-70mm constant f2.8? ismaelg Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 06-10-2010 09:13 AM
Constant Aperture vs Variable Aperture Netsoft Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 01-11-2010 07:29 AM
90, 100, 105 macros not "constant f/2.8"? WMBP Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 31 09-28-2009 09:21 PM
Constant Blur on the right side JohnnyDop Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 10-23-2008 01:33 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:06 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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