Much awaited Tamron 17-50

Workingdog · 01-31-2008, 07:25 PM

I am one of the apparently many who are giving serious consideration to snagging one of these when it's available. I currently have the Tamron 18-250 and it seems to be a very nice lens for what it is but I think the 17-50 will serve some needs. Please tell me if I'm wrong in this thinking about the 17-50.
1. Would be a better lens for low light with its constant f2.8
2. Given the narrower zoom range would probably have better IQ than the 18-250
3. Although not a dedicated macro would be better for macro and/or portrait photography than the 18-250.

Feel free to add your own reasons for wanting/needing the 17-50.

lock2nl · 02-01-2008, 04:58 AM

1. good tests, though a bit of a problem with CA at 17 mm. But that's no problem for me.
2. price difference to pentax 16-50 and expected compatibel IQ quality, despite loss of sdm and probably somewhat less built (sigma 18-50 left out of comparison cause of less favorable tests /experiences)
3. money to be saved will be put in fast 70-200 from Sigma with HSM

lock

AlexL · 02-01-2008, 04:10 PM

To compliment #1, wider aperture also means narrower depth of field whenever I want to do selective focusing or maybe even portraits. I'm trying to get out of the habit of thinking about wide apertures as "just for low-lighting."

One minor point is that my DA 16-45, the front element actually extends out several inches in wide angle, which I've found awkward a few times in really tight spaces. The Tamron 17-50's front is retracted in wide angle.

My reasons for wanting the Tamron are similar to yours, I can't wait for it to hit the stores!

Alex L

jeff1101 · 02-02-2008, 01:13 AM

Same here.

I also might add, that compared to the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 its a touch wider at 17 but with a smaller overall dimension than the Sigma.

benplaut · 02-02-2008, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by jeff1101

Same here.

I also might add, that compared to the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 its a touch wider at 17 but with a smaller overall dimension than the Sigma.

It gets much better reviews, however. It all depends on the price difference!

jeff1101 · 02-02-2008, 04:19 AM

Oh I meant that as a good thing. Tamron is wider than the Sigma at wide angle and yet is still smaller in size overall. (Which is preferable if you want a general take anywhere lens).

But your right the pricing for this lens will be crucial for most buyers still undecided between the two.

02-02-2008, 01:13 AM	#4
jeff1101 Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Manila, Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 86	Re: Same here. I also might add, that compared to the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 its a touch wider at 17 but with a smaller overall dimension than the Sigma.

02-02-2008, 04:19 AM	#6
jeff1101 Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Manila, Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 86	Re: Oh I meant that as a good thing. Tamron is wider than the Sigma at wide angle and yet is still smaller in size overall. (Which is preferable if you want a general take anywhere lens). But your right the pricing for this lens will be crucial for most buyers still undecided between the two.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 24-60mm F2.8 (K mount) and Tamron Adaptall 24mm F2.5 with Tamron P/K ada	pxpaulx	Sold Items	4	08-27-2010 08:47 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K100d + 18-55mm + Tamron 70-300mm; Tamron 90mm Macro	jake123	Sold Items	4	11-09-2009 12:51 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron SP 70-210mm f/3.5, Tamron SP 28-135mm f/4.0-4.5 28A, Tamron pk/a adapta	hinman	Sold Items	14	05-08-2009 05:35 PM
The long awaited 60-250 is now available:	Tom S.	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	04-10-2009 05:58 AM
Which of the awaited lenses are you most anxious to buy next?	Richard Day	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	47	01-26-2008 04:33 AM

01-31-2008, 07:25 PM	#1
Workingdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: York, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 736	Much awaited Tamron 17-50 I am one of the apparently many who are giving serious consideration to snagging one of these when it's available. I currently have the Tamron 18-250 and it seems to be a very nice lens for what it is but I think the 17-50 will serve some needs. Please tell me if I'm wrong in this thinking about the 17-50. 1. Would be a better lens for low light with its constant f2.8 2. Given the narrower zoom range would probably have better IQ than the 18-250 3. Although not a dedicated macro would be better for macro and/or portrait photography than the 18-250. Feel free to add your own reasons for wanting/needing the 17-50.

02-01-2008, 04:58 AM	#2
lock2nl Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 48	1. good tests, though a bit of a problem with CA at 17 mm. But that's no problem for me. 2. price difference to pentax 16-50 and expected compatibel IQ quality, despite loss of sdm and probably somewhat less built (sigma 18-50 left out of comparison cause of less favorable tests /experiences) 3. money to be saved will be put in fast 70-200 from Sigma with HSM lock

02-01-2008, 04:10 PM	#3
AlexL Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Athens, GA Posts: 137	To compliment #1, wider aperture also means narrower depth of field whenever I want to do selective focusing or maybe even portraits. I'm trying to get out of the habit of thinking about wide apertures as "just for low-lighting." One minor point is that my DA 16-45, the front element actually extends out several inches in wide angle, which I've found awkward a few times in really tight spaces. The Tamron 17-50's front is retracted in wide angle. My reasons for wanting the Tamron are similar to yours, I can't wait for it to hit the stores! Alex L

02-02-2008, 02:31 AM	#5
benplaut Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Central NY Posts: 268	Originally posted by jeff1101 Same here. I also might add, that compared to the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 its a touch wider at 17 but with a smaller overall dimension than the Sigma. It gets much better reviews, however. It all depends on the price difference!