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

babaloohead · 01-10-2012, 06:05 AM

I'm debating between Sigma 17-50 mm, Tamron 17-50mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Tokina 16-50

I recently purchased a Canon 60D and I'd love to get some input on these lenses. I've got mixed reviews from many different websites. I'd like an all-around lens for good image quality and good auto-focus that can be used for portraits, groups, sports, etc. (sort of all around) and have narrowed it down to these few.

Here is a sample of my photographs to get a sense of what I might need: Flickr: Alaia.Schwegler's Photostream

Thanks in advance!

Edgar_in_Indy · 01-10-2012, 06:35 AM

Great pictures!

It looks like you spend a lot of time at 55mm, and that you like to do head shots. Have you considered something a little longer, like the Tamron 28-75mm or Sigma 24-70mm? It would be fun to later pair it with an ultra-wide, like the Sigma 10-20mm or 8-16mm or the Tamron 10-24mm. In the meantime, you could keep the 18-55mm for when you need something wider.

I don't know about the Sigma 24-70mm, but the Tamron 28-75mm can focus on something just a few inches away from the front element, so it is also good for quasi-macro photography.

lytrytyr · 01-10-2012, 06:36 AM

Judging by the sports shots on your Flickr stream,
it looks as if you'd need a longer lens for that kind of assignment.

That said, I've found the unstabilized version of the Tamron 17-50
to be a relatively light, compact, and useful lens for general photography,
with excellent image quality,
that should work well for group shots in tight spaces,
and that is acceptable for head shot portraiture at 50mm.
Some people prefer the Tamron 28-75 for individual portraiture.

yusuf · 01-10-2012, 06:50 AM

I have both, both are pretty good lenses. Both are very sharp, may be 28-75mm is a bit more sharper than 17-50mm. I somehow prefer 28-75mm for walk around & portraits and hence 17-50mm sees a lot less usage than 28-75mm. Here are some pics using both the lenses:

Tamron 28-75mm

Some pics using Tamron 17-50mm

adpo · 01-10-2012, 07:27 AM

i currently have the 16-50, and have gone through several of the others on your list.
both tamrons are solid performers, i felt the 28-75 performed better than the 17-50, although i preferred the wider of the two as i use my zoom as my event lens and have the DA* 55mm f/1.4 as a dedicated portrait lens. For just portraits, the 28-75 is a great choice.

my experience with sigmas can pretty much be summed up to newer is better. The newer the lens, the better the performance, so if you decide to go sigma rather than tamron, go for the HSM versions of the lens. Again, i prefer the performance/overall "look" of the 24-70 over the 17-50, but the 17-50 is just so damn useful for events and whatnot. And again, i recommend the 24-70 for portraits over the 17-50.

as for the 16-50mm, i find it's performance in regards to sharpness, CA, and distortion to be the weakest of the bunch. However, it has been my favorite of the bunch for a variety of reasons:
Incredibly solid build. you just have to hold it to know what i mean.
The overall "look" it gives. I dont know how to describe it, but it's colors and contrast straight out of camera is just so good, I have to do very minimal PP, which is a great timesaver if i'm going through hundreds of event photos.
Stopped down, its sharp and very contrasty and i find that, used this way, it makes a great studio lens.
Its sharp enough wide open to be perfectly useable, but that also lends itself to that slightly soft look i aim for when doing environmental portraiture

good luck with your decision! the canon is a solid camera for portraiture

westmill · 01-10-2012, 09:21 AM

it seems you are asking an awful lot from a single lens !!!!!! portraits, groups, sports etc !
From a focal lengh point of veiw you could do with a superzoom like the pentax 18 to 250 F3.5- 5.6 that will provide all the lenses you will ever need.
This is at the cost of a liitle sharpnes though !
Take some thought in splitting this into two lenses though, and you can get superior results and faster lenses.
IE... Tamron 16-50 plus 70-200 etc

babaloohead · 01-10-2012, 01:27 PM

Thanks so much for all the input!
I think I'm leaning towards the Tamron 28-75 and later pairing that up with a wide angle lens.

Which do you guys recommend for a wide angle lens?

the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (the older one) or 8-16mm, the Tamron 10-24mm, the Canon 10-22mm or Tokina 11-16mm? (lots of choices !)

and for sports?

Last edited by babaloohead; 01-10-2012 at 01:33 PM. Reason: Apparently the older Sigma has better image quality, despite difference in aperture)

Anvh · 01-10-2012, 01:37 PM

You do know this a Pentax forum right

The 10-22 won't fit on Pentax and Tokina never made a 11-16 for pentax sadly.
The tokina is highly valued though but i've no idea how it behaves on a Canon.

If you go for a 28-75 then a 70-200 lens for sports looks to be perfect.
Tamron, Sigma and Canon makes them.

JinDesu · 01-10-2012, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

You do know this a Pentax forum right

The 10-22 won't fit on Pentax and Tokina never made a 11-16 for pentax sadly.
The tokina is highly valued though but i've no idea how it behaves on a Canon.

If you go for a 28-75 then a 70-200 lens for sports looks to be perfect.
Tamron, Sigma and Canon makes them.

He has a Canon 60D and is asking for lens advice for that.

My understanding is that the Sigma 8-16 is the sharpest of the ultrawides and the Tokina is lovely (because of the metal build). The 10-20 F4-5.6 (which I have) is a nice performer, and it's newer brother is faster but not that much better (has HSM though I think). The Tamron 10-24 has a lotta praise in the review threads here, but I don't know if it's sharper than the 10-20. It is cheaper though, I usually see it going for 300 used.

Anvh · 01-10-2012, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by JinDesu

He has a Canon 60D and is asking for lens advice for that.

I know but as far as i know this a pentax forum and since he made his account this month and this are his only two comments it just looked a bit odd.
I have nothing against it though, just shows how friendly we are =]

The comment about some lenses not fitting Pentax, i meant with them that it's doubtful any one here on the Pentaxforums would have used those lenses so that any advice is unlikely.

micdy · 01-12-2012, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Anvh

I know but as far as i know this a pentax forum and since he made his account this month and this are his only two comments it just looked a bit odd.
I have nothing against it though, just shows how friendly we are =]

The comment about some lenses not fitting Pentax, i meant with them that it's doubtful any one here on the Pentaxforums would have used those lenses so that any advice is unlikely.

That means Pentax folks know what they are talking about~!

David L · 01-06-2013, 08:13 PM

I'm also facing this old dilemma and want to buy one of this lens to replace my 18-135 kit lens that came with K5. I found 18-135's huge vignetting unacceptable - I need very often to crop my pictures to get rid of ugly dark corners.

I'm thinking Tamron 17-50 for better FL, but then it also has some vignetting according to reviews.

Are these Tammy lenses really better than DA 18-135? Do you see vignette a problem for 17-50? Any comments are much appreciated!

David

Edgar_in_Indy · 01-06-2013, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by David L

I'm also facing this old dilemma and want to buy one of this lens to replace my 18-135 kit lens that came with K5. I found 18-135's huge vignette unacceptable - I need very often to corp my pictures to get rid of ugly dark corners.

I'm thinking Tamron 17-50 for better FL, but then it also has some vignette according to reviews.

If you want to avoid vignetting, then the Tamron 28-75mm is the lens for you. Practically no vignetting with that lens.

lytrytyr · 01-07-2013, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by David L

I'm also facing this old dilemma and want to buy one of this lens to replace my 18-135 kit lens that came with K5. I found 18-135's huge vignetting unacceptable - I need very often to crop my pictures to get rid of ugly dark corners.

I'm thinking Tamron 17-50 for better FL, but then it also has some vignetting according to reviews.

Are these Tammy lenses really better than DA 18-135? Do you see vignette a problem for 17-50? Any comments are much appreciated!

David, you can correct vignetting in post-processing.

In the "Pentax Digital Camera Utility" that is bundled with the K5,
it's Lens aberration correction > Marginal lumination compensation
(which makes sense in Japanese, if not in English).

rrwilliams64 · 01-07-2013, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by babaloohead

I'm debating between Sigma 17-50 mm, Tamron 17-50mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Tokina 16-50

I recently purchased a Canon 60D and I'd love to get some input on these lenses. I've got mixed reviews from many different websites. I'd like an all-around lens for good image quality and good auto-focus that can be used for portraits, groups, sports, etc. (sort of all around) and have narrowed it down to these few.

Here is a sample of my photographs to get a sense of what I might need: Flickr: Alaia.Schwegler's Photostream

Thanks in advance!

I've owned/own both the Tamron 28-75 and the Tammy 17-50, prefer the 28-75 for its longer reach and portraiture, ( I was fortunate, both were good copies); I use my 18-55 when the need to go wider arises...YMMV

01-10-2012, 06:05 AM	#1
babaloohead New Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 2	Debating between Sigma 17-50 mm, Tamron 17-50mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Tokina 16-50 I'm debating between Sigma 17-50 mm, Tamron 17-50mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Tokina 16-50 I recently purchased a Canon 60D and I'd love to get some input on these lenses. I've got mixed reviews from many different websites. I'd like an all-around lens for good image quality and good auto-focus that can be used for portraits, groups, sports, etc. (sort of all around) and have narrowed it down to these few. Here is a sample of my photographs to get a sense of what I might need: Flickr: Alaia.Schwegler's Photostream Thanks in advance!

01-06-2013, 08:13 PM	#12
David L Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 95	I'm also facing this old dilemma and want to buy one of this lens to replace my 18-135 kit lens that came with K5. I found 18-135's huge vignetting unacceptable - I need very often to crop my pictures to get rid of ugly dark corners. I'm thinking Tamron 17-50 for better FL, but then it also has some vignetting according to reviews. Are these Tammy lenses really better than DA 18-135? Do you see vignette a problem for 17-50? Any comments are much appreciated! David Last edited by David L; 01-06-2013 at 11:48 PM.

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

01-10-2012, 06:35 AM	#2
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Great pictures! It looks like you spend a lot of time at 55mm, and that you like to do head shots. Have you considered something a little longer, like the Tamron 28-75mm or Sigma 24-70mm? It would be fun to later pair it with an ultra-wide, like the Sigma 10-20mm or 8-16mm or the Tamron 10-24mm. In the meantime, you could keep the 18-55mm for when you need something wider. I don't know about the Sigma 24-70mm, but the Tamron 28-75mm can focus on something just a few inches away from the front element, so it is also good for quasi-macro photography.

01-10-2012, 06:36 AM	#3
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Judging by the sports shots on your Flickr stream, it looks as if you'd need a longer lens for that kind of assignment. That said, I've found the unstabilized version of the Tamron 17-50 to be a relatively light, compact, and useful lens for general photography, with excellent image quality, that should work well for group shots in tight spaces, and that is acceptable for head shot portraiture at 50mm. Some people prefer the Tamron 28-75 for individual portraiture.

01-10-2012, 06:50 AM	#4
yusuf Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Palo Alto, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,497	I have both, both are pretty good lenses. Both are very sharp, may be 28-75mm is a bit more sharper than 17-50mm. I somehow prefer 28-75mm for walk around & portraits and hence 17-50mm sees a lot less usage than 28-75mm. Here are some pics using both the lenses: Tamron 28-75mm Some pics using Tamron 17-50mm

01-10-2012, 07:27 AM	#5
adpo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 888	i currently have the 16-50, and have gone through several of the others on your list. both tamrons are solid performers, i felt the 28-75 performed better than the 17-50, although i preferred the wider of the two as i use my zoom as my event lens and have the DA* 55mm f/1.4 as a dedicated portrait lens. For just portraits, the 28-75 is a great choice. my experience with sigmas can pretty much be summed up to newer is better. The newer the lens, the better the performance, so if you decide to go sigma rather than tamron, go for the HSM versions of the lens. Again, i prefer the performance/overall "look" of the 24-70 over the 17-50, but the 17-50 is just so damn useful for events and whatnot. And again, i recommend the 24-70 for portraits over the 17-50. as for the 16-50mm, i find it's performance in regards to sharpness, CA, and distortion to be the weakest of the bunch. However, it has been my favorite of the bunch for a variety of reasons: Incredibly solid build. you just have to hold it to know what i mean. The overall "look" it gives. I dont know how to describe it, but it's colors and contrast straight out of camera is just so good, I have to do very minimal PP, which is a great timesaver if i'm going through hundreds of event photos. Stopped down, its sharp and very contrasty and i find that, used this way, it makes a great studio lens. Its sharp enough wide open to be perfectly useable, but that also lends itself to that slightly soft look i aim for when doing environmental portraiture good luck with your decision! the canon is a solid camera for portraiture

01-10-2012, 09:21 AM	#6
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	it seems you are asking an awful lot from a single lens !!!!!! portraits, groups, sports etc ! From a focal lengh point of veiw you could do with a superzoom like the pentax 18 to 250 F3.5- 5.6 that will provide all the lenses you will ever need. This is at the cost of a liitle sharpnes though ! Take some thought in splitting this into two lenses though, and you can get superior results and faster lenses. IE... Tamron 16-50 plus 70-200 etc

01-10-2012, 01:27 PM	#7
babaloohead New Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 2 Original Poster	Thanks so much for all the input! I think I'm leaning towards the Tamron 28-75 and later pairing that up with a wide angle lens. Which do you guys recommend for a wide angle lens? the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (the older one) or 8-16mm, the Tamron 10-24mm, the Canon 10-22mm or Tokina 11-16mm? (lots of choices !) and for sports? Last edited by babaloohead; 01-10-2012 at 01:33 PM. Reason: Apparently the older Sigma has better image quality, despite difference in aperture)

01-10-2012, 01:37 PM	#8
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	You do know this a Pentax forum right The 10-22 won't fit on Pentax and Tokina never made a 11-16 for pentax sadly. The tokina is highly valued though but i've no idea how it behaves on a Canon. If you go for a 28-75 then a 70-200 lens for sports looks to be perfect. Tamron, Sigma and Canon makes them.

01-10-2012, 01:44 PM	#9
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by Anvh You do know this a Pentax forum right The 10-22 won't fit on Pentax and Tokina never made a 11-16 for pentax sadly. The tokina is highly valued though but i've no idea how it behaves on a Canon. If you go for a 28-75 then a 70-200 lens for sports looks to be perfect. Tamron, Sigma and Canon makes them. He has a Canon 60D and is asking for lens advice for that. My understanding is that the Sigma 8-16 is the sharpest of the ultrawides and the Tokina is lovely (because of the metal build). The 10-20 F4-5.6 (which I have) is a nice performer, and it's newer brother is faster but not that much better (has HSM though I think). The Tamron 10-24 has a lotta praise in the review threads here, but I don't know if it's sharper than the 10-20. It is cheaper though, I usually see it going for 300 used.

01-10-2012, 03:55 PM	#10
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by JinDesu He has a Canon 60D and is asking for lens advice for that. I know but as far as i know this a pentax forum and since he made his account this month and this are his only two comments it just looked a bit odd. I have nothing against it though, just shows how friendly we are =] The comment about some lenses not fitting Pentax, i meant with them that it's doubtful any one here on the Pentaxforums would have used those lenses so that any advice is unlikely.

01-12-2012, 02:46 AM	#11
micdy New Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 8	Originally posted by Anvh I know but as far as i know this a pentax forum and since he made his account this month and this are his only two comments it just looked a bit odd. I have nothing against it though, just shows how friendly we are =] The comment about some lenses not fitting Pentax, i meant with them that it's doubtful any one here on the Pentaxforums would have used those lenses so that any advice is unlikely. That means Pentax folks know what they are talking about~!

01-06-2013, 09:25 PM	#13
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Originally posted by David L I'm also facing this old dilemma and want to buy one of this lens to replace my 18-135 kit lens that came with K5. I found 18-135's huge vignette unacceptable - I need very often to corp my pictures to get rid of ugly dark corners. I'm thinking Tamron 17-50 for better FL, but then it also has some vignette according to reviews. If you want to avoid vignetting, then the Tamron 28-75mm is the lens for you. Practically no vignetting with that lens.

01-07-2013, 12:22 AM	#14
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by David L I'm also facing this old dilemma and want to buy one of this lens to replace my 18-135 kit lens that came with K5. I found 18-135's huge vignetting unacceptable - I need very often to crop my pictures to get rid of ugly dark corners. I'm thinking Tamron 17-50 for better FL, but then it also has some vignetting according to reviews. Are these Tammy lenses really better than DA 18-135? Do you see vignette a problem for 17-50? Any comments are much appreciated! David, you can correct vignetting in post-processing. In the "Pentax Digital Camera Utility" that is bundled with the K5, it's Lens aberration correction > Marginal lumination compensation (which makes sense in Japanese, if not in English).

01-07-2013, 05:20 PM	#15
rrwilliams64 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: ohio Posts: 335	Originally posted by babaloohead I'm debating between Sigma 17-50 mm, Tamron 17-50mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Tokina 16-50 I recently purchased a Canon 60D and I'd love to get some input on these lenses. I've got mixed reviews from many different websites. I'd like an all-around lens for good image quality and good auto-focus that can be used for portraits, groups, sports, etc. (sort of all around) and have narrowed it down to these few. Here is a sample of my photographs to get a sense of what I might need: Flickr: Alaia.Schwegler's Photostream Thanks in advance! I've owned/own both the Tamron 28-75 and the Tammy 17-50, prefer the 28-75 for its longer reach and portraiture, ( I was fortunate, both were good copies); I use my 18-55 when the need to go wider arises...YMMV