[Mr. B]

The superior IQ, lack of SDM, and smaller size were the factors that led me to the Tamron A16P.

Same here I'd have the 16-50 and the 50-135 by now, but I'm afraid of the SDM failure... I could live with optical imperfections (16-50), but with everything put together it's simply not worth the money.
With the price I'd pay for the 50-135, I have the Tamrons 17-50 and 70-200. So, there you go

---

Last edited by Mr. B; 12-31-2011 at 10:04 AM.

[Reportage]

Same here I'd have the 16-50 and the 50-135 by now, but I'm afraid of the SDM failure... I could live with optical imperfections (16-50), but with everything put together it's simply not worth the money.
With the price I'd paid for the 50-135, I have the Tamrons 17-50 and 70-200. So, there you go

2nd hand Tamrons? The 50-135mm is about $899 at B&H and the Tamrons combined is about $1138.

[lytrytyr]

2nd hand Tamrons? The 50-135mm is about $899 at B&H and the Tamrons combined is about $1138.

Perhaps the 50-135 budget includes $239 for an out-of-warranty SDM repair.

[Anvh]

The above lenses have been reported to have SDM failures too. The % is up for anyone's guess.

I only have heard about a problem with the 17-70 but cleaning the contacts solved that.
If SDM was really that problematic we would hear a lot more about it.

[Anvh]

Perhaps the 50-135 budget includes $239 for an out-of-warranty SDM repair.

Depends on the laws of your country but you can have extended warranty.
One reason is that the DA* serries are profesional lenses and therefore more reliability is expected from them then a budget lens.
Other one is there are so many failures known with the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 that you might throw it on a manufacturing/design fault.

[Mr. B]

2nd hand Tamrons? The 50-135mm is about $899 at B&H and the Tamrons combined is about $1138.

Yes, second hand. There are two used 50-135s for sale here currently and they're $50 more expensive than my 2 Tamrons together.

I'm not saying that the DA* lenses are bad, but for the money I expect to have no problems whatsoever.

[orangezorki]

I'm debating the purchase of a 16-50 at the moment, and you guys aren't exactly making it easy!

Like many of you, I love the idea of the 16-50, as it feels great, has just the right combo of wide-angle and tele, but the merely 'good' IQ and suspect reliability have kept me from buying for years. I almost bought one in a shop two years ago, but the SDM was bust right out of the box! (Glad I checked it)

But now, I feel that I have let my Pentax kit gather dust for too long, and a professional level standard zoom is what I need. What I really want is a K-5, as that is undeniably fantastic value at the moment, but a good lens would be a better investment in every way. But I still can't make up my mind. As far as I can see, all three lenses (Pentax, Sigma, Tamron) are APS sensor only, and I want something that will last for not only years, but decades. And I've heard that the Tamron is a bit flimsy, and while the Sigma lens I own is great, an extra 1mm at the wide angle means more than it sounds.

I have heard many users say that the 16-50 is the best ting since sliced bread, and I don't mind the extra cost as on the street it is more like £50 more than the Sigma, but the Tamron is half the price.

So, should I just splurge, be sensible and get the Tamron, or look at slower lenses with larger ranges that are just as good wide open, knowing that I have the 31mm Limited to fall back on?

Thanks in advance,

David

[lytrytyr]

So, should I just splurge, be sensible and get the Tamron, or look at slower lenses?

Get the Tamron. Here's a sample from today with the K-x, no PP, just re-sized and converted to the web palette.

[northcoastgreg]

So, should I just splurge, be sensible and get the Tamron, or look at slower lenses with larger ranges that are just as good wide open, knowing that I have the 31mm Limited to fall back on?

Look at the slower lenses. Use zooms when you need FL versatility, primes when you need aperture versatility.

I'm rather surprised that so many assume that the Tamron is as good or perhaps even better than the DA 16-50. I can only judge by the images I've seen from these lenses (but isn't that the whole point of a lens, the images it produces?), but from what I've seen, the 16-50 is the clear winner. Better contrast, better colors, beter rendering: it just produces aesthetically more pleasing images. The Tamron may test out a hair better at this or that aperture on this or that resolution test: but given that all these lenses have QC issues and that there's more to a lens than mere resolving power, I'm not sure why so much emphasis is placed on such quantification mongering.

[Mr. B]

That might be true, but it costs twice the money and you can never be sure how long the SDM will last. If there would be a Mk2 version with a DC motor... Now, that's another story
For the money, the Tamron can't be beat. If you have 700USD (don't know the exact price) to spend on the 16-50, then go for it. I don't have that kind of money and in the end, it's just not worth it.

[Anvh]

DC motor will also wear out...
Just go to the store and actually hold the lenses just to know how they feel in your hands, it can change things

[cbope]

Seems like they should release version two of this and the 50-135.

This. I've recently decided to get the Pentax 18-135 for now and hold out for a version II of the DA* 16-50. Lack of weather sealing is a deal-breaker for me so no 3rd party lenses.

[lytrytyr]

Just go to the store and actually hold the lenses just to know how they feel in your hands, it can change things

Not that easy in many parts of the world.

And although the feel of a lens is a factor,
it's not the most important one.

[Anvh]

And although the feel of a lens is a factor,
it's not the most important one.

Don't forget the use of the lens, not merely the feel.
The DA*16-50 and surely the DA*50-135 are quite nice to manual focus for an AF lens, no idea how the tamron or the sigma are though.

It isn't a deal breaker but might tip the scale if you can't decide which seems to be the case here.

[lytrytyr]

The DA*16-50 and surely the DA*50-135 are quite nice to manual focus for an AF lens, no idea how the tamron or the sigma are though.

To me, the Tamron ring seems to be quite light and short in its throw,
but my manual focus ZKs might be skewing my judgment of that.

For fine tuning of the Tamron, I prefer live-view contrast AF.

Another issue is that for quick-on-the-draw shots,
when there's no time to unhook the reversed hood,
the hood covers the focus ring anyway.
At least the ring will turn freely under the hood.