Debating between Sigma 17-50 mm, Tamron 17-50mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Tokina 16-50

David L · 01-07-2013, 11:23 PM

Thanks to you all for your suggestions and tips. I'm now leaning towards Tamron 28-75, and will use my DA 18-135 for wider range...

westmill · 01-08-2013, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by David L

Thanks to you all for your suggestions and tips. I'm now leaning towards Tamron 28-75, and will use my DA 18-135 for wider range...

A wise decision

with the added bonus of if ever Pentax do make a full frame ******

Pheo · 01-08-2013, 04:26 AM

Just a quick add to this - if the Tamron 28-75 is half as good as the 17-50mm:

I'm finding I could do with a bit more length, so was thinking about the 28-75mm, the problem being occasionally I want to get up close and use the wide-angle aspect of the 17-50mm, but its rare - I'm going to do a focal length analysis and work it out. I like the sound of the Sigma 24-70mm, but not so much the price.

David L · 01-08-2013, 04:14 PM

Nice shots Pheo. I noticed you have both DA18-135 and Tamron 17-50. Which one do you prefer, and is the IQ from the Tamron 17-50 much better than DA18-135 in the same focal range?

Bestzoom · 01-08-2013, 11:22 PM

Looking at your work, you like to shoot longer than 50mm.... That will exclude a lot of the zooms you have listed.

Canon lens produces a different look (more magenta). Sigma tends to produce a warmer image (like Nikon). If Canon lens is in your budget, why not go for a Canon zoom or portrait prime with aperture 1.8.

All the best..

Pheo · 01-09-2013, 02:56 PM

Q

Originally posted by David L

Nice shots Pheo. I noticed you have both DA18-135 and Tamron 17-50. Which one do you prefer, and is the IQ from the Tamron 17-50 much better than DA18-135 in the same focal range?

Humm, difficult to say - I tend to use them for different purposes I.e the Tamron comes out for indoors/low light. The 18-135 is more versatile - so when I don't know what I'm going to be shooting it tends to go on. It's still a great lens:

But perhaps for slightly different purposes. Wouldn't have been comfortable with the 18-135 in low light indoors for instance. Wouldn't take the Tamron on a day hike... I've not noticed a dramatic difference in IQ, but this is probably due to not having to stress the Pentax lens. I suspect if I got it out in lowlight my photography would suffer. Stopped down in good light, not so much.

**Lowell Goudge** · 01-09-2013, 04:44 PM

Aside from the fact that the OP has not posted for a few posts, and, that I will ignore the fact he shoots canon as opposed to Pentax, I will offer some comments here as my base kit is a sigma 10-20F4-5.6, a sigma 70-200F2.8 and a tamron 28-75F2.8. I seem to have either the kit he is liking at and / or what others here recommend.

The only issue I have is the gap from 20-28mm between the sigma 10-20 and the Tammy 28-75. This can sometimes be a limitation. Ideally there should be some overlap of lenses in this range. I fill this with the FA-J 18-35 which I also own, and depending on what I am doing overall, I leave either the FA-J 18-35 or the 70-200 at home but only rarely both. I find that I am either shooting wide to moderate tele, or shooting tele, and only occasional need for wide, but I neve cover end whole focal length on one outing.

Consider your kit as the whole range but for a specific mission you don't expect to cover the entire range of your kit, only your kit needs to cover the entire range of missions

David L · 01-09-2013, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Pheo

Q

Humm, difficult to say - I tend to use them for different purposes I.e the Tamron comes out for indoors/low light. The 18-135 is more versatile - so when I don't know what I'm going to be shooting it tends to go on. It's still a great lens:

But perhaps for slightly different purposes. Wouldn't have been comfortable with the 18-135 in low light indoors for instance. Wouldn't take the Tamron on a day hike... I've not noticed a dramatic difference in IQ, but this is probably due to not having to stress the Pentax lens. I suspect if I got it out in lowlight my photography would suffer. Stopped down in good light, not so much.

Thanks a lot Pheo for your comments. I'm now leaning towards Tamron 17-50, but will wait a little while to see if the IQ of newly announced Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 is better than the Tamron 17-50.

Pheo · 01-10-2013, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by David L

Thanks a lot Pheo for your comments. I'm now leaning towards Tamron 17-50, but will wait a little while to see if the IQ of newly announced Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 is better than the Tamron 17-50.

Likewise - I just did an analysis of focal lengths from my recent event and 2000 shots out of 2750 are at 50mm

And I cropped a lot

So want to see if the Sigma could perform both roles. I wonder when. The first reviews will arrive

Pheo · 01-10-2013, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by David L

Thanks a lot Pheo for your comments. I'm now leaning towards Tamron 17-50, but will wait a little while to see if the IQ of newly announced Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 is better than the Tamron 17-50.

Likewise - I just did an analysis of focal lengths from my recent event and 2000 shots out of 2750 are at 50mm

And I cropped a lot

So want to see if the Sigma could perform both roles. I wonder when. The first reviews will arrive

KSJayhawk · 03-23-2013, 08:56 AM

I've had the Tamron 28-75 on a Canon 50D and 7D and it is a super lens, really sharp. It has some trouble focusing in low light, some hunting, but looking through my pictures most of my shots were with that lens. I traded it for the Sigma 17-50 OS and it has served me well, better for group shots where I need the shorter focal length and nice for video with the OS. It's paired with the Tokina 11-16 that I just love. Great lens for ultra wide on a APS-C camera. I wish I still had the Tamron 28-75 for the additional reach as a walk-around lens, but I needed the funds for the Sigma.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tamron 17-50mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Sigma 17-70mm, which lens for my trip to Greece?	macky112	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	11-20-2011 03:08 PM
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 not as fast (bright) as Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 on Pentax K-x, PICS	Edgar_in_Indy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	38	01-10-2011 04:09 PM
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or Tamron 28-75mm f2.8	tubamatt	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	08-15-2010 04:15 AM
lens comparison- fa50mm / tamron 17-50mm / tamron 28-75mm	bimjo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	03-16-2010 01:10 AM

01-07-2013, 11:23 PM	#16
David L Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 95	Thanks to you all for your suggestions and tips. I'm now leaning towards Tamron 28-75, and will use my DA 18-135 for wider range...

01-08-2013, 04:16 AM	#17
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Originally posted by David L Thanks to you all for your suggestions and tips. I'm now leaning towards Tamron 28-75, and will use my DA 18-135 for wider range... A wise decision with the added bonus of if ever Pentax do make a full frame ******

01-08-2013, 04:26 AM	#18
Pheo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Brighton, United Kingdom Photos: Gallery Posts: 311	Just a quick add to this - if the Tamron 28-75 is half as good as the 17-50mm: I'm finding I could do with a bit more length, so was thinking about the 28-75mm, the problem being occasionally I want to get up close and use the wide-angle aspect of the 17-50mm, but its rare - I'm going to do a focal length analysis and work it out. I like the sound of the Sigma 24-70mm, but not so much the price.

01-08-2013, 04:14 PM	#19
David L Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 95	Nice shots Pheo. I noticed you have both DA18-135 and Tamron 17-50. Which one do you prefer, and is the IQ from the Tamron 17-50 much better than DA18-135 in the same focal range?

01-08-2013, 11:22 PM	#20
Bestzoom Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 232	Looking at your work, you like to shoot longer than 50mm.... That will exclude a lot of the zooms you have listed. Canon lens produces a different look (more magenta). Sigma tends to produce a warmer image (like Nikon). If Canon lens is in your budget, why not go for a Canon zoom or portrait prime with aperture 1.8. All the best..

01-09-2013, 02:56 PM	#21
Pheo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Brighton, United Kingdom Photos: Gallery Posts: 311	Q Originally posted by David L Nice shots Pheo. I noticed you have both DA18-135 and Tamron 17-50. Which one do you prefer, and is the IQ from the Tamron 17-50 much better than DA18-135 in the same focal range? Humm, difficult to say - I tend to use them for different purposes I.e the Tamron comes out for indoors/low light. The 18-135 is more versatile - so when I don't know what I'm going to be shooting it tends to go on. It's still a great lens: But perhaps for slightly different purposes. Wouldn't have been comfortable with the 18-135 in low light indoors for instance. Wouldn't take the Tamron on a day hike... I've not noticed a dramatic difference in IQ, but this is probably due to not having to stress the Pentax lens. I suspect if I got it out in lowlight my photography would suffer. Stopped down in good light, not so much.

01-09-2013, 04:44 PM	#22
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Aside from the fact that the OP has not posted for a few posts, and, that I will ignore the fact he shoots canon as opposed to Pentax, I will offer some comments here as my base kit is a sigma 10-20F4-5.6, a sigma 70-200F2.8 and a tamron 28-75F2.8. I seem to have either the kit he is liking at and / or what others here recommend. The only issue I have is the gap from 20-28mm between the sigma 10-20 and the Tammy 28-75. This can sometimes be a limitation. Ideally there should be some overlap of lenses in this range. I fill this with the FA-J 18-35 which I also own, and depending on what I am doing overall, I leave either the FA-J 18-35 or the 70-200 at home but only rarely both. I find that I am either shooting wide to moderate tele, or shooting tele, and only occasional need for wide, but I neve cover end whole focal length on one outing. Consider your kit as the whole range but for a specific mission you don't expect to cover the entire range of your kit, only your kit needs to cover the entire range of missions

01-09-2013, 06:22 PM	#23
David L Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 95	Originally posted by Pheo Q Humm, difficult to say - I tend to use them for different purposes I.e the Tamron comes out for indoors/low light. The 18-135 is more versatile - so when I don't know what I'm going to be shooting it tends to go on. It's still a great lens: But perhaps for slightly different purposes. Wouldn't have been comfortable with the 18-135 in low light indoors for instance. Wouldn't take the Tamron on a day hike... I've not noticed a dramatic difference in IQ, but this is probably due to not having to stress the Pentax lens. I suspect if I got it out in lowlight my photography would suffer. Stopped down in good light, not so much. Thanks a lot Pheo for your comments. I'm now leaning towards Tamron 17-50, but will wait a little while to see if the IQ of newly announced Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 is better than the Tamron 17-50.

01-10-2013, 07:26 AM	#24
Pheo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Brighton, United Kingdom Photos: Gallery Posts: 311	Originally posted by David L Thanks a lot Pheo for your comments. I'm now leaning towards Tamron 17-50, but will wait a little while to see if the IQ of newly announced Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 is better than the Tamron 17-50. Likewise - I just did an analysis of focal lengths from my recent event and 2000 shots out of 2750 are at 50mm And I cropped a lot So want to see if the Sigma could perform both roles. I wonder when. The first reviews will arrive

01-10-2013, 08:23 AM	#25
Pheo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Brighton, United Kingdom Photos: Gallery Posts: 311	Originally posted by David L Thanks a lot Pheo for your comments. I'm now leaning towards Tamron 17-50, but will wait a little while to see if the IQ of newly announced Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 is better than the Tamron 17-50. Likewise - I just did an analysis of focal lengths from my recent event and 2000 shots out of 2750 are at 50mm And I cropped a lot So want to see if the Sigma could perform both roles. I wonder when. The first reviews will arrive

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-23-2013, 08:56 AM	#26
KSJayhawk New Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 5	I've had the Tamron 28-75 on a Canon 50D and 7D and it is a super lens, really sharp. It has some trouble focusing in low light, some hunting, but looking through my pictures most of my shots were with that lens. I traded it for the Sigma 17-50 OS and it has served me well, better for group shots where I need the shorter focal length and nice for video with the OS. It's paired with the Tokina 11-16 that I just love. Great lens for ultra wide on a APS-C camera. I wish I still had the Tamron 28-75 for the additional reach as a walk-around lens, but I needed the funds for the Sigma.