[Ash]

I loved the 16-50 when I had it. The IQ was just beautiful. The focusing was troublesome at infinity at times because the lens failed to lock on when it started off at infinity focus. I had to focus on something closer to me before it was refocus on a distant subject. That was annoying at times. I did pass my copy up in favour of the FA limiteds but I later learnt the lens suffered from SDM failure with the person I sold it to. Even with the stellar build and IQ I won't be buying another one because the Tamron 28-75 I have is just a reliable workhorse, and I've rarely needed the WR for my applications.

[ivanvernon]

My copy of this focal length is the Tamron brand (17-50 mm, 2.8), and priced at about $1,000 less than the Pentax lens. I have just received this lens, so have not completely checked it out. I am wondering what the main differences in the Pentax and Tamron lenses are that make the pricing difference a logical amount to pay.

[stevebrot]

My copy of this focal length is the Tamron brand (17-50 mm, 2.8), and priced at about $1,000 less than the Pentax lens. I have just received this lens, so have not completely checked it out. I am wondering what the main differences in the Pentax and Tamron lenses are that make the pricing difference a logical amount to pay.

The main difference is that they are are not same lens.

The Pentax-DA* 16-50/2.8 was designed and produced in cooperation with Tokina (not Tamron) and was formerly available in other than k-mount (without the SMC coating) under that brand name.

Your Tamron is a decent optic and should prove to be a good tool. For what it's worth, there are multiple discussions on the Web comparing the Tamron 17-50/2.8 with the Tokina 16-50/2.8.


Steve

[ivanvernon]

Thank you. I will look up the discussions on the two lenses.

[sa_lontoc]

I love mine, I can't think of any lens now that could replaced it, it's a good match to my Da 50-135 my only complain is the slow auto focus when compared to other SDM/HSM lens .

[koper]

when you shoot close subgects due to wide angle you need to change the AF to spot measurment-the same problem you can find with a lott wide amgle lenses
ather wise it is good lenses

[Iksobarg]

Tamron 17-50mm.

[lightbulb]

It has its flaws especially against bright light, but overall acceptable.

[Pål Jensen]

It's just probably my lens, but the sharpness at infinity focus is terrible. Focus overall is kind of all over the place too...

I hope you don't crank it all the way until it stops at infinity; like most modern AF lenses the lens focus past infinity (interesting concept BTW). So you have to "find" infinity. This is not helped by the weird focus throw on this lens; probably its biggest drawback. With 90% of its throw from 2-0.3m m and a few mm for 2m to infinity. This means that 1mm turn of the ring may throw the focus totally off!

[jpyykonen]

Anyone feel the same way about the 16-50?

There are days when I use it and the results I get are great. You look at the images and it's such an awesome lens...

Then there are days when you shoot with it and it's terrible. You think about selling it.

It's just probably my lens, but the sharpness at infinity focus is terrible. Focus overall is kind of all over the place too...

I got similar feelings, but not anyway terrible. There seems to be focusing errors sometimes, something like it would focus past infinity (and photo is bit misfocused). It seemed to happen more often with K-7 and not that often with K-5 (at least for me). Makes the focusing feel a bit unreliable. That said, I think it's a beautiful lens. More I use it, more I like it and more I value the strengths of this lens. It is no perfect but all things considered it's very good. Distortion or CA is not a problem as those are easily corrected in Lightroom (with lens profiles). Resolution is excellent at F5.6-F8. I have also Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I haven't used it since I got the DA*. I think that DA* 16-50/2.8 is worth about double the Tamron but not four times more. US prices of this lens seem crazy. EU prices not so much (800-900€). I think they should sell this lens at around 500-600€, that would be right price for this lens.

[simico]

Anyone feel the same way about the 16-50?

There are days when I use it and the results I get are great. You look at the images and it's such an awesome lens...

Then there are days when you shoot with it and it's terrible. You think about selling it.

Exactly my feelings. Though I get more disappointing and mediocre results than good ones from this lens. My DA 17-70 was much better overall, I very much regret my stupid mistake of selling that for DA* 16-50

[john5100]

I bought it in December during the price drop with a 3 year warranty and I love it.

This was taken with it.

[CRPhoto]

I'm on the same boat. When the 16-50 performs it's great. Recently the SDM on my copy died so right now my lens is in Japan. When the lens works as it should then it's a great thing to have. I really like the zoom range, the WR, the size and feel of good quality. Hopefully when it gets back I'll have that great lens once again!

[Gray]

Is this really a "great lens", with so many negative or mediocre reviews (user and professional) and reported SDM failures? Are we suffering from a galloping case of denial?

[lytrytyr]

Is this really a "great lens", with so many negative or mediocre reviews . . . and reported SDM failures?

"Greatness," as the ability to perform extremely well in the best case,
often comes with flaws that mar the everyday performance.