Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-27-2011, 06:05 AM   #1
Veteran Member
Reportage's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 739
Has the Tamron/Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 made you reconsider getting the DA* 16-50mm?

Did you nit pick on every detail before you decided?

12-27-2011, 06:07 AM   #2
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,115
AFAIK they both take better pictures- the only question is whether or not the weather sealing of the 16-50mm is worth going for over the IQ and price.
12-27-2011, 06:14 AM   #3
Veteran Member
Reportage's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 739
Original Poster
To me, the decision would be easier if there was a pentax mount Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens.
12-27-2011, 06:36 AM   #4
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Reportage Quote
Did you nit pick on every detail before you decided?
The superior IQ, lack of SDM, and smaller size
were the factors that led me to the Tamron A16P.

12-27-2011, 06:39 AM   #5
Site Supporter
Biro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,182
Since I purchased my DA* 16-50 along with my K200D in 2008, it's a moot question for me. But I will say that my concerns about the 16-50 led me to pick up a DA 16-45 on closeout at a very nice price a year later. I still have both lenses. In 2008, we didn't quite have the body of information about the 16-50 that we have now. But knowing all we know now and if I was in the market for a lens in that focal range, yes, I would definitely consider the Tamron and/or Sigma.
12-27-2011, 07:26 AM   #6
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,217
I have a good copy of the DA *16-50. I really wanted a weather sealed normal lens and this fit the bill. The Sigma wasn't available when I purchased the 16-50 (not that it is weather sealed). Having the extra mm on the wide end is really handy sometimes over the other two (although it is pretty weak at f2.8).

The biggest problem with the 16-50 is the lack of quality control. There are an awful lot of copies with decentered elements and quite a few reports of SDM problems. Many have had to go through two or three copies to get a good copy -- in my opinion it is worth it in the end. The interaction of Pentax glass with Pentax body gives better colors than with third party lens makers (in my opinion).

Last edited by Rondec; 12-27-2011 at 08:26 AM.
12-27-2011, 07:55 AM   #7
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
I already had the DA*50-135 for a while and wanted something slightly wider to compliment it, DA*16-50 was the logical choice.
12-27-2011, 07:59 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Biro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,182
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I have a good copy of the DA *16-50. I really wanted a weather sealed normal lens and this fit the bill. The Sigma wasn't available when I purchased the 16-50 (not that it is weather sealed). Having the extra mm on the wide end is really handy sometimes over the other two (although it is pretty weak at f2.8).

The biggest problem with the 16-50 is the lack of quality control. There are an awful lot of copies with decentered elements and quite a few reports of SDM. Many have had to go through two or three copies to get a good copy -- in my opinion it is worth it in the end. The interaction of Pentax glass with Pentax body gives better colors than with third party lens makers (in my opinion).
You are 100% right about the quality control. Sometimes, the 16-50 can be brilliant. I guess what offends me is that having to go through two or three examples before getting a perfect copy is something I reserve for third-party lenses costing half as much. Having to return a copy of a $400 Tamron, psychologically, doesn't bother me as much as having to do the same thing with an $800 Pentax. After all, we pay a premium for Pentax glass in order to get what we regard as Pentax quality. I'm hoping we can chalk this up to a bad episode from the Hoya years. Here's hoping Ricoh will do better - that's my New Year's wish!

12-27-2011, 08:36 AM   #9
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,217
QuoteOriginally posted by Biro Quote
You are 100% right about the quality control. Sometimes, the 16-50 can be brilliant. I guess what offends me is that having to go through two or three examples before getting a perfect copy is something I reserve for third-party lenses costing half as much. Having to return a copy of a $400 Tamron, psychologically, doesn't bother me as much as having to do the same thing with an $800 Pentax. After all, we pay a premium for Pentax glass in order to get what we regard as Pentax quality. I'm hoping we can chalk this up to a bad episode from the Hoya years. Here's hoping Ricoh will do better - that's my New Year's wish!
I hope so, although, I think the DA *16-50 really comes from the pre-Hoya era. Seems like they should release version two of this and the 50-135.
12-28-2011, 09:02 AM   #10
Junior Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: PA
Posts: 43
Recently, I sold my old Sigma17-50/2.8, and replaced by DA*16-50.
I made this decision because of colors.
DA*16-50 is a very awesome lens if you get a "normal" copy.
12-29-2011, 01:42 PM   #11
Veteran Member
DaveHolmes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,501
I wanted an upgrade of the kit-18-55...
The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 was the cheapest of the three and the reviews were pretty good...
My pictures improved drastically in terms of IQ and because I was enjoying that I shot more and my skills improved with the IQ boost...
I'd really like an all AF-prime-kit but I'll be keeping the Tamron... Hope to get a second body at some point, would love K5 and 4 or 5 AF-primes and my K-x and 17-50-f2.8 as a back-up!!
The Tamron is a hunking-big piece of glass but she's well worth it!
12-29-2011, 02:36 PM   #12
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
I think the biggest con of Tamron/Sigma is their sub-standard built quality which may not be obvious on the outside but reflected by their prices. You really have to baby them or they can suffer from optical misalignment easily. Their optical performance can be awesome though if you get a good copy. Well, DA*16-50? Is SDM safe yet? That's the big question and Pentax is not telling us.
12-29-2011, 11:17 PM   #13
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
If SDM wasn't save then also the DA*55, DA*200, DA*300, DA*60-250 and DA17-70 would be having the same problems, it's only the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 that are problematic...
12-29-2011, 11:41 PM   #14
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
If SDM wasn't save then also the DA*55, DA*200, DA*300, DA*60-250 and DA17-70 would be having the same problems, it's only the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 that are problematic...
The above lenses have been reported to have SDM failures too. The % is up for anyone's guess.
12-30-2011, 03:58 AM   #15
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by wlachan Quote
I think the biggest con of Tamron/Sigma is their sub-standard built quality which may not be obvious on the outside but reflected by their prices. You really have to baby them or they can suffer from optical misalignment easily.
I don't think you can generalise that much.

There are very well-built Sigma lenses and some very cheaply-built Pentax lenses. You'll have to take two concrete lens models and then make a statement. A general statement just referring to brands is not possible, AFAIC.

Besides, I'd never be rough with any lens, even if I knew that the internal built is sturdy. Why would I risk some misalignment even if the risk is smaller than with a cheaply built lens?
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
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 vs Tamron 17-50mm and Pentax DA* 16-50mm Adam Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 89 12-28-2014 07:28 PM
Experiences with Tamron 17-50mm or Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 Macro on K-5? Lampo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 10-08-2011 09:36 AM
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM v Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] lmd91343 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 05-25-2011 07:04 PM
Quick question on Tamron 17-50mm vs Sigma 17-50mm Edgar_in_Indy Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 11-19-2010 01:08 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:32 AM. | 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