Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: To pair with the K-01: Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 16-45, or Sigma 17-50
Tamron 17-50 2564.10%
Pentax DA 16-45 615.38%
Sigma 17-50 820.51%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-12-2015, 11:04 AM   #31
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
slip's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,537
I used to own a Tammy but now own the Sigma. The optics are similar but I find the Sigma better built. The Tammy is cheaper so it is a trade off.

Randy

11-12-2015, 12:51 PM   #32
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,550
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I don't have the 16-45, I did use a friend's briefly... nothing really stands out in my mind. CA values are for me un-acceptable.
Easily correctable either in-camera (not with the Tamron though) or in post.
11-12-2015, 06:42 PM   #33
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,796
QuoteOriginally posted by slip Quote
I used to own a Tammy but now own the Sigma. The optics are similar but I find the Sigma better built. The Tammy is cheaper so it is a trade off.
Every review I could find on the net showed the Sigma was sharper at f2.8, and f2.8 is the reason I sold my 16-45 for a 17-50.

QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
Easily correctable either in-camera (not with the Tamron though) or in post.
One click in LR and the 16-45mm CA is gone. Some lenses have purple fringing, which LR does not manage very well. The 16-45 doesn't.
11-12-2015, 07:13 PM   #34
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,056
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
Easily correctable either in-camera (not with the Tamron though) or in post.
I'm not so sure about that, it corrects the visible CA, but does it correct the reduced micro-contrast? The problem with CA is the cyan values taking light that should be in one pixel, to the one beside it. That kills minor-contrast, throughout the whole image. But I don't have lightroom. With the software I use, even though they have similar values, my DA*60-250 doesn't have as good micro-contrast as my Tamron 90. I have trouble even envisioning how software would correct that.

I'd love to see some examples showing that someone can take a lens that easily produces aberrations like my F 70-210 and produce just as good an image as the Tamron, by running it through software. Or substitute any lens you like. If that's true, why do folks pay the big bucks for good lenses, there'd be no need.

Every thing I've seen is woefully lacking in providing this kind of example.


Last edited by normhead; 11-12-2015 at 07:22 PM.
11-13-2015, 07:33 AM   #35
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,550
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I'm not so sure about that, it corrects the visible CA, but does it correct the reduced micro-contrast? The problem with CA is the cyan values taking light that should be in one pixel, to the one beside it. That kills minor-contrast, throughout the whole image. But I don't have lightroom. With the software I use, even though they have similar values, my DA*60-250 doesn't have as good micro-contrast as my Tamron 90. I have trouble even envisioning how software would correct that.

I'd love to see some examples showing that someone can take a lens that easily produces aberrations like my F 70-210 and produce just as good an image as the Tamron, by running it through software. Or substitute any lens you like. If that's true, why do folks pay the big bucks for good lenses, there'd be no need.

Every thing I've seen is woefully lacking in providing this kind of example.
As far as CA correction goes ACR does a pretty good job.

A random DA16-45 shot :







PS ACR CA correction on one of these, otherwise same post settings. Full size images should be accessible.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5724/22362630254_501083a025_o.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5763/22959359646_f628f6cfc7_o.jpg
04-18-2016, 07:57 AM   #36
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,056
The claim made was that you could make a 16-45 image as good as an image from a lens that didn't need correction, like the 21ltd. So, I'm not really clear on how relevant that is.
04-18-2016, 08:53 AM   #37
Veteran Member
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,519
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The claim made was that you could make a 16-45 image as good as an image from a lens that didn't need correction, like the 21ltd. So, I'm not really clear on how relevant that is.
Norm, I agree with you that CA corrected by the converter is not the same as a lens showing very little or no CA. The better converters (Capture One in particular) are quite good at modest, pedestrian CA clean up, though.

Keep in mind, there are different forms of CA, and some forms are not easily perceived - and clean up far more easily. LOCA is very difficult to clean up, and usually accompanies focus shift. So, a double whammy. A good copy of the 16-45 will have a very small amount of blue-yellow shift - far less than what is exhibited by the Pentax/Tokina 12-24, for instance. Having used both lenses extensively, the 16-45 is not a problem, comparatively.

You should trust those of us who have been using the 16-45 for years, and have had very good results. Most of us got a good copy, as opposed to the Tamron that had a somewhat higher rate of poor copies (not surprising consider the f/2.8 aperture requires more critical tolerances). Not that the 16-45 is perfect. You literally have to support the barrel of the lens with your free hand when zoomed to 16mm to keep it straight. It has been that way since the day I took it out of the box! By 19mm, the wobble problem is completely gone, and image quality is particularly good. By 28mm, the minor CA issue is completely gone (on a good copy).
04-30-2016, 05:17 AM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
The key factor is the f/2.8 vs f/4 apperture. Know what you need. If you are going to shoot indoor, in low light or migth want to shoot portraiture, the 17-50 f/2.8 are a must, there no point to ever think of the 16-45 because it is not fit for the job. This mean that for a transtandard lens to be used in wide variety of situations, the 16-45 is far less usefull. It neirther provide wide apperture, neither provide a wide range of focals.

If the goal is landscapes and indoor or portraiture no really important, the 16-45 can fit the job.

But counting the 16-45 is not so well finished and a good sample of either the tamron/sigma 17-50 are overall better lenses than 16-45, the reason for that lens is mostly price or vs the sigma, weight. Vs the tamron, I don't thing the weight is that different.

We can go on forever on a few % difference between a "good" 16-45 sample (be lucky to find one, the lens is not longer sold new, not like you could send back samples until you get a good/great one...) and "good" 17-50 sample at f/4 or something will not show in picture, On the opposite, f/2.8 vs f/4 will be very visible.

04-30-2016, 07:26 AM   #39
New Member
Chester UK's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2016
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19
Also consider the Sigma 17-70 F2.8 - F4.


I found a used one in mint condition (like new, boxed) for 150 in the UK, compared with 330 for the current F2.8 - F4 model.
Using it on a K5 body, I have been impressed at all focal lengths, especially when used around F8 (as I would expect).
It's also light and compact, and I replaced the petal hood with a cheap folding/collapsing rubber hood to allow a deeper hood at 70mm.
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!
advantage, body, comparison, da, f/2.8, f/4, iso, k-01, k-mount, lens, lenses, light, limiteds, noise, pentax, pentax lens, pf, post, quality, scores, sharpness, sigma, slr lens, tamron, usd
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
pentax 16-45 or tamron 17-50 houstonmacgregor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 01-01-2014 02:21 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-m + 50-135 + F 100 macro + sigma 17-70 + 50-150 + tamron 17-50 + metz 50 AF blem49 Sold Items 11 07-26-2013 03:25 PM
Shootout #2 - DA 15 Ltd / Tamron 17-50 @17 / DA* 16-50 @16 / Sigma 10-20 @16 EarlVonTapia Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 06-23-2013 10:17 PM
DA* 16-50 or Sigma 17-50 or Tamron 17-50 Frogfish Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 152 01-02-2011 05:01 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:15 PM. | 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