Help me decide: Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 16-45, or Sigma 17-50 for my K-01

yellowbrick · 07-23-2014, 12:51 PM

I know these threads pop up every now and then but I am looking for advice specifically as it takes into consideration: (1) my camera body, the K-01, and (2) lens price. NOTE: none of these lenses carry manufacturer warranties because they are either used or grey-market goods.

I have a K-01 and my only zoom is the DA 18-135mm WR, along with four of the DA limited primes. Although I like the DA 18-135, it's more of a nice convenient travel zoom, and the image quality is definitely a step below the primes. So I'm looking at adding a shorter zoom that offers better image quality and a bit wider aperture range than the DA 18-135 for times when I'm shooting in poor lighting and/or indoors.

I have a chance to purchase these three zooms at the following prices:

(1) DA 16-45 f/4 for $200 USD - used model but in great cosmetic shape
(2) Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for $300 USD - brand-new
(3) Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 for $350 USD - brand-new

Factoring in these prices, and keeping in mind that I'd like to get the best bang for the buck as possible, what would you do in my position?

A few thoughts I already had, based on my extensive research into these options:

(1) For balance with the body, the DA 16-45 or Tamron 17-50 may work best with the K-01 because the Sigma 17-50 is bigger (77mm filter) and much heavier.
(2) Tamron 17-50 has some reports of BF/FF problems, but that's not an issue for me because I'm using the K-01 and its CDAF system.
(3) Sigma's build quality is a big plus. But is the DA 16-45 build quality really that sub-par, and is the Tamron 17-50's build quality the same or better than DA 16-45?
(4) Sigma's silent autofocus motor is also an advantage over the Tamron 17-50 and DA 16-45, especially since the K-01 is such a quiet shutter. I really appreciate how quiet the K-01 + DA 18-135 DC combination is! I've heard the Tamron in particular has a loud, dentist-drill-like autofocus motor sound.
(5) Pentax DA 16-45 has a slight advantage of offering a wider field of view, though it's 5mm shorter on the long end compared to the Sigma and Tamron. For my shooting style, I sort of prefer wider over longer, but is 16mm all that different from 17mm? And is 45mm all that different from 50mm?
(6) I want to get one of these three lenses primarily for indoor use. The f/2.8 capability of the Tamron and Sigma obviously are pluses over the Pentax f/4 zoom. But with the K-01's high ISO range, I think I can get by with f/4 shooting inside.
(7) Image quality, in terms of sharpness and contrast/color, seems high with any of these choices, though I think the general consensus is Sigma 17-50 > Tamron 17-50 > DA 16-45. But I know copy variation can play a role in this ordering.

Thanks for any and all help!

seventysixersfan · 07-23-2014, 01:01 PM

I don't have the Sigma or Tamron and have never used either. But I recently purchased a DA 16-45 f/4 and love it. Feels lighter than the DA 18-135 WR so it balances very well with my K-50 and K-01. Beautiful Pentax colors! Decent-enough build quality-- at least my copy does not have any "wobbles" that some users have experienced. And sharp right from f/4, not quite prime sharp but much better than my kit lens 18-55. At $200, it's a very good value, though the prices you found for the Sigma and Tamron are excellent too.

Good luck!

lesmore49 · 07-23-2014, 01:49 PM

I'm happy with my Pentax 16-45. Never used the Tamron....or the Sigma. I do have a Sigma lens...a 150-500. Good quality.

hcc · 07-23-2014, 02:06 PM - **1 Like**

I do not have any of these lenses but I have a K-01. I think that the weight of the lens and the balance of the system (K-01 + lens) will be critical.

The K-01 does not have a large grip (eg like the K-3) nor an optical view finder. In turn I found that the balance of the K-01 + lens is often critical to a comfortable shooting position.

If you could, I would encourage you to go to a brick-and-mortar shop and try out these lenses. (My local store allowed me to do so.) All these 3 lenses are well considered for IQ, and your feel for the camera + lens may be the deciding factor.

My 5 cents....

nomadkng · 07-23-2014, 02:13 PM

PF did a side by side comparison of these 3. Might want to read the results and then decide based on application.
I purchased the Tamron 17-50 SPECIFICALLY for it anti-flare characteristics, since I shoot a lot of sunsets/sunrises.
the sigma was slightly sharper center, with the tamron having better corners.
if I remember right, the pentax was the lowest rated of the bunch.

robthebloke · 07-23-2014, 02:25 PM

The 16-45 is better than the 18-55 kit lens, but it isn't that much better, and the f4 aperture is a bind. Sharp it is not!! Sharp-for-a-cheap zoom at a push, but it is no where near prime-sharp. The 18-135 is smaller, sharper, and has wr. I used my 16-45 once, and it's been sitting in its box ever since.

paraben · 07-23-2014, 02:38 PM

If you are going to use the lens mostly inside, I would definitely go for one of the 2.8 models. You won't regret that. Your K-01 has a high ISO range, but at higher ISO values noise and/or noise reduction is introduced. It's better to have a large aperture. At DXOMark the Sigma scores a bit higher than the Tamron. It also scores higher in the member reviews on this forum. So I would choose the Sigma.

seventysixersfan · 07-23-2014, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by nomadkng

PF did a side by side comparison of these 3.

Originally posted by nomadkng

if I remember right, the pentax was the lowest rated of the bunch.

actually, the PF comparison was with the Tamron, Sigma, and Pentax DA* 16-50. It did not include the DA 16-45.

---------- Post added 07-23-14 at 06:00 PM ----------

Originally posted by robthebloke

The 18-135 is smaller, sharper, and has wr. I used my 16-45 once, and it's been sitting in its box ever since.

Strange, that's not been my experience. The 18-135 is smaller in size but slightly heavier. My DA 16-45 definitely seems sharper than my DA 18-135. It may be sample variation-- that is, I have an excellent 16-45 and a so-so 18-135. But I'm not sure.

---------- Post added 07-23-14 at 06:02 PM ----------

Originally posted by paraben

If you are going to use the lens mostly inside, I would definitely go for one of the 2.8 models. You won't regret that. Your K-01 has a high ISO range, but at higher ISO values noise and/or noise reduction is introduced. It's better to have a large aperture. At DXOMark the Sigma scores a bit higher than the Tamron. It also scores higher in the member reviews on this forum. So I would choose the Sigma.

I agree with the comments about the usefulness of f/2.8 for a zoom that will be used indoors. However, I'm not certain that the K-01 would balance all that well with the much larger Sigma lens. That's where I agree with @hcc because the K-01, without a substantial (or really any) grip, may feel very top-heavy with the Sigma compared to the lighter DA 16-45.

HenrikDK · 07-23-2014, 03:54 PM

The 18-135mm is very good center, not so good corners, especially on the long end. I doubt very much that the lenses you mention will provide a significant improvement with the vast majority of pictures you are taking. I would get a second camera body used, like a k-r. Doesn't weigh a lot more than the 2.8 lenses, and allows you to use two different DA limiteds. Just a thought...

BTW I sold my DA* 16-50 and got the 18-135. I found I always used my primes when IQ was important, and for casual work the 18-135 is plenty good... Or maybe it is was an LBA thing - grass is always greener...

Kayaker-J · 07-23-2014, 04:18 PM - **1 Like**

Hello. I finally decided I needed a zoom lens in this category to supplement my preferred prime lenses. I went with the Tamron... AND another (see below). As to suggestions that the Sigma might be better, go to ephotozine/photodo and compare the two side by side (though the VC version of the Tamron is reviewed, which has 3 more -- IQ degrading? -- elements in it). The Sigma results are very worrying, I'd suggest. Does this reflect the rather frequently mentioned sample to sample, QC-related variations with some Sigma lenses? As Dirty Harry once put, "Well, do you feel lucky [,punk]?" At least, that's the way I looked at it.

My priority, looking at this purchase with respect to its being a "gap-filler" between prime lens FL's, was to consider the 18-28mm range with the most scrutiny; then the performance pegged at 50mm. Between inferences I could draw from those concise and clear photodo charts and the testimonies in the database here, a decision wasn't too difficult, particularly given the Sigma's additional weight and bulk. Keeping in mind that I'm carrying primes, the possible negatives of the Sigma just added up. Others with a different priority set may feel differently. I ruled out the Pentax quickly, for my needs, just from scanning the PF lens database.

In summary, my main concern with the Tamron boiled down to distortion at the widest end. Niggles or complaints about the build strike me as somewhat overblown and sometimes even self-contradictory: What do want, extremely compact size and feather weight for its genre... or superficially more rugged plastic? Mine just arrived, please note, so I can't comment yet where I don't have the experience; but the only construction issue that bugs me a bit is the stiff, scrapey-feeling zoom ring action; but it does not bind and feels fairly consistent over the range. Folks suggest this effect eases with use.

I also acquired the full frame Tokina 20-35mm/3.5-4.5. I will be comparing the two zooms in the 20-28mm range -- lying between my DA15mm and my FA31mm Limiteds -- ...and also to my soon-to-arrive FA20mm/2.8. For me, getting a maximum result around the 20mm FL is priority No.1. Your 'mileage probably differs' on this one. A bonus with the Tokina is getting to 20mm full frame on film, as well as the potential "future-proofing" factor. I hope some ideas contained here will help you out.

tibbitts · 07-23-2014, 05:02 PM

My 16-45 wobbles, a lot. Whether more or less than new, I can't say, but I know I couldn't detect a detrimental effect at 6mp, but I can at 16mp. Maybe the lens got worse between those two generations of bodies, or maybe 16mp is just higher enough resolution for it to matter. But significantly, nobody has been able to identify how to fix a wobbly 16-45, so if you get one, make sure you can return it if even slightly wobbly.

The 17-50 Tamron lacks quick shift, which is annoying and seemingly dangerous (something feels like it's going to break every time you crank on the focus without remembering to disengage it.) I've had some erratic behavior from it (seemingly losing contact with the camera, although that only affected AF, turning it into MF for a while), and both my bodies need a 10 (or maybe more if it was easily avaialble) adjustment. I have no issues with the optical quality, however.

Don't know anything about the Sigma, but I believe the other two are smaller/lighter if that matters.

Kayaker-J · 07-23-2014, 05:51 PM

@tibbitts... From a new (secondhand) Tamron zoom owner, thanks for the tip; I'll be careful. I will put up with a fair amount of minor grief for better IQ -- just my bias.

mr.b.snowden · 07-23-2014, 08:24 PM

My two cents: the Sigma 17-50 is a great piece of gear. I just got my used copy last week and am surprised by how sharp it is at f/2.8 throughout the entire focal range. The AF is fast and quiet and the lens is built solidly. Shooting without a hood doesn't affect the lens much either. My only gripe is that I wish the MFD was less (I also have the Sigma 20-40 f/2.8) as I love getting the wide angle distortion. No real issues with focus, as setting my copy to +4 yields sharp photos across the entire range, compared to my Sigma 20-40 that has trouble on both ends with a set adjustment.

lytrytyr · 07-23-2014, 08:40 PM - **1 Like**

The Tamron 17-50/2.8 works very well on the K-01.
It doesn't have the exceptional rendering, color, quick-shift, WR or flare resistance of the DA 20-40,
but gives excellent value for a third of the price, and makes a great event lens.

mtux · 07-24-2014, 03:03 AM

I had and have the DA18-135, and went this way by buying the Tamron lens.
Even though it's a sharp and nice lens. After one year, I ended up deciding to sell the Tamron. because I think when I'm on zoom, having more reach and convenient of WR is more usable for me. and for those important shots, I have one of limiteds in my pocket/bag.
Also the DA18-135 is no slouch in that range! even wide open! and You just need to step it down to f/5.6 for very good sharpness.
and you have to step down the Tamron to f/4 for sharpness. and then for low light, I prefer my DA35ltd even the DA35 plasticy focuses and works better in low light condition.

View Poll Results: To pair with the K-01: Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 16-45, or Sigma 17-50
Tamron 17-50	25	64.10%
Pentax DA 16-45	6	15.38%
Sigma 17-50	8	20.51%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

07-23-2014, 12:51 PM	#1
yellowbrick Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Southern Maryland Posts: 110	Help me decide: Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 16-45, or Sigma 17-50 for my K-01 I know these threads pop up every now and then but I am looking for advice specifically as it takes into consideration: (1) my camera body, the K-01, and (2) lens price. NOTE: none of these lenses carry manufacturer warranties because they are either used or grey-market goods. I have a K-01 and my only zoom is the DA 18-135mm WR, along with four of the DA limited primes. Although I like the DA 18-135, it's more of a nice convenient travel zoom, and the image quality is definitely a step below the primes. So I'm looking at adding a shorter zoom that offers better image quality and a bit wider aperture range than the DA 18-135 for times when I'm shooting in poor lighting and/or indoors. I have a chance to purchase these three zooms at the following prices: (1) DA 16-45 f/4 for $200 USD - used model but in great cosmetic shape (2) Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for $300 USD - brand-new (3) Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 for $350 USD - brand-new Factoring in these prices, and keeping in mind that I'd like to get the best bang for the buck as possible, what would you do in my position? A few thoughts I already had, based on my extensive research into these options: (1) For balance with the body, the DA 16-45 or Tamron 17-50 may work best with the K-01 because the Sigma 17-50 is bigger (77mm filter) and much heavier. (2) Tamron 17-50 has some reports of BF/FF problems, but that's not an issue for me because I'm using the K-01 and its CDAF system. (3) Sigma's build quality is a big plus. But is the DA 16-45 build quality really that sub-par, and is the Tamron 17-50's build quality the same or better than DA 16-45? (4) Sigma's silent autofocus motor is also an advantage over the Tamron 17-50 and DA 16-45, especially since the K-01 is such a quiet shutter. I really appreciate how quiet the K-01 + DA 18-135 DC combination is! I've heard the Tamron in particular has a loud, dentist-drill-like autofocus motor sound. (5) Pentax DA 16-45 has a slight advantage of offering a wider field of view, though it's 5mm shorter on the long end compared to the Sigma and Tamron. For my shooting style, I sort of prefer wider over longer, but is 16mm all that different from 17mm? And is 45mm all that different from 50mm? (6) I want to get one of these three lenses primarily for indoor use. The f/2.8 capability of the Tamron and Sigma obviously are pluses over the Pentax f/4 zoom. But with the K-01's high ISO range, I think I can get by with f/4 shooting inside. (7) Image quality, in terms of sharpness and contrast/color, seems high with any of these choices, though I think the general consensus is Sigma 17-50 > Tamron 17-50 > DA 16-45. But I know copy variation can play a role in this ordering. Thanks for any and all help!

07-23-2014, 02:25 PM	#6
robthebloke Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 844	The 16-45 is better than the 18-55 kit lens, but it isn't that much better, and the f4 aperture is a bind. Sharp it is not!! Sharp-for-a-cheap zoom at a push, but it is no where near prime-sharp. The 18-135 is smaller, sharper, and has wr. I used my 16-45 once, and it's been sitting in its box ever since. Last edited by robthebloke; 07-23-2014 at 02:33 PM.

07-23-2014, 04:18 PM - 1 Like	#10
Kayaker-J Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: N.E. Ohio Posts: 535	Hello. I finally decided I needed a zoom lens in this category to supplement my preferred prime lenses. I went with the Tamron... AND another (see below). As to suggestions that the Sigma might be better, go to ephotozine/photodo and compare the two side by side (though the VC version of the Tamron is reviewed, which has 3 more -- IQ degrading? -- elements in it). The Sigma results are very worrying, I'd suggest. Does this reflect the rather frequently mentioned sample to sample, QC-related variations with some Sigma lenses? As Dirty Harry once put, "Well, do you feel lucky [,punk]?" At least, that's the way I looked at it. My priority, looking at this purchase with respect to its being a "gap-filler" between prime lens FL's, was to consider the 18-28mm range with the most scrutiny; then the performance pegged at 50mm. Between inferences I could draw from those concise and clear photodo charts and the testimonies in the database here, a decision wasn't too difficult, particularly given the Sigma's additional weight and bulk. Keeping in mind that I'm carrying primes, the possible negatives of the Sigma just added up. Others with a different priority set may feel differently. I ruled out the Pentax quickly, for my needs, just from scanning the PF lens database. In summary, my main concern with the Tamron boiled down to distortion at the widest end. Niggles or complaints about the build strike me as somewhat overblown and sometimes even self-contradictory: What do want, extremely compact size and feather weight for its genre... or superficially more rugged plastic? Mine just arrived, please note, so I can't comment yet where I don't have the experience; but the only construction issue that bugs me a bit is the stiff, scrapey-feeling zoom ring action; but it does not bind and feels fairly consistent over the range. Folks suggest this effect eases with use. I also acquired the full frame Tokina 20-35mm/3.5-4.5. I will be comparing the two zooms in the 20-28mm range -- lying between my DA15mm and my FA31mm Limiteds -- ...and also to my soon-to-arrive FA20mm/2.8. For me, getting a maximum result around the 20mm FL is priority No.1. Your 'mileage probably differs' on this one. A bonus with the Tokina is getting to 20mm full frame on film, as well as the potential "future-proofing" factor. I hope some ideas contained here will help you out. Last edited by Kayaker-J; 07-23-2014 at 05:46 PM.

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

07-23-2014, 01:01 PM	#2
seventysixersfan Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 2,054	I don't have the Sigma or Tamron and have never used either. But I recently purchased a DA 16-45 f/4 and love it. Feels lighter than the DA 18-135 WR so it balances very well with my K-50 and K-01. Beautiful Pentax colors! Decent-enough build quality-- at least my copy does not have any "wobbles" that some users have experienced. And sharp right from f/4, not quite prime sharp but much better than my kit lens 18-55. At $200, it's a very good value, though the prices you found for the Sigma and Tamron are excellent too. Good luck!

07-23-2014, 01:49 PM	#3
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349	I'm happy with my Pentax 16-45. Never used the Tamron....or the Sigma. I do have a Sigma lens...a 150-500. Good quality.

07-23-2014, 02:06 PM - 1 Like	#4
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,004	I do not have any of these lenses but I have a K-01. I think that the weight of the lens and the balance of the system (K-01 + lens) will be critical. The K-01 does not have a large grip (eg like the K-3) nor an optical view finder. In turn I found that the balance of the K-01 + lens is often critical to a comfortable shooting position. If you could, I would encourage you to go to a brick-and-mortar shop and try out these lenses. (My local store allowed me to do so.) All these 3 lenses are well considered for IQ, and your feel for the camera + lens may be the deciding factor. My 5 cents....

07-23-2014, 02:13 PM	#5
nomadkng Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,448	PF did a side by side comparison of these 3. Might want to read the results and then decide based on application. I purchased the Tamron 17-50 SPECIFICALLY for it anti-flare characteristics, since I shoot a lot of sunsets/sunrises. the sigma was slightly sharper center, with the tamron having better corners. if I remember right, the pentax was the lowest rated of the bunch.

07-23-2014, 02:38 PM	#7
paraben Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Netherlands Posts: 26	If you are going to use the lens mostly inside, I would definitely go for one of the 2.8 models. You won't regret that. Your K-01 has a high ISO range, but at higher ISO values noise and/or noise reduction is introduced. It's better to have a large aperture. At DXOMark the Sigma scores a bit higher than the Tamron. It also scores higher in the member reviews on this forum. So I would choose the Sigma.

07-23-2014, 02:59 PM	#8
seventysixersfan Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by nomadkng PF did a side by side comparison of these 3. Originally posted by nomadkng if I remember right, the pentax was the lowest rated of the bunch. actually, the PF comparison was with the Tamron, Sigma, and Pentax DA* 16-50. It did not include the DA 16-45. ---------- Post added 07-23-14 at 06:00 PM ---------- Originally posted by robthebloke The 18-135 is smaller, sharper, and has wr. I used my 16-45 once, and it's been sitting in its box ever since. Strange, that's not been my experience. The 18-135 is smaller in size but slightly heavier. My DA 16-45 definitely seems sharper than my DA 18-135. It may be sample variation-- that is, I have an excellent 16-45 and a so-so 18-135. But I'm not sure. ---------- Post added 07-23-14 at 06:02 PM ---------- Originally posted by paraben If you are going to use the lens mostly inside, I would definitely go for one of the 2.8 models. You won't regret that. Your K-01 has a high ISO range, but at higher ISO values noise and/or noise reduction is introduced. It's better to have a large aperture. At DXOMark the Sigma scores a bit higher than the Tamron. It also scores higher in the member reviews on this forum. So I would choose the Sigma. I agree with the comments about the usefulness of f/2.8 for a zoom that will be used indoors. However, I'm not certain that the K-01 would balance all that well with the much larger Sigma lens. That's where I agree with @hcc because the K-01, without a substantial (or really any) grip, may feel very top-heavy with the Sigma compared to the lighter DA 16-45.

07-23-2014, 03:54 PM	#9
HenrikDK Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 386	The 18-135mm is very good center, not so good corners, especially on the long end. I doubt very much that the lenses you mention will provide a significant improvement with the vast majority of pictures you are taking. I would get a second camera body used, like a k-r. Doesn't weigh a lot more than the 2.8 lenses, and allows you to use two different DA limiteds. Just a thought... BTW I sold my DA* 16-50 and got the 18-135. I found I always used my primes when IQ was important, and for casual work the 18-135 is plenty good... Or maybe it is was an LBA thing - grass is always greener...

07-23-2014, 05:02 PM	#11
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	My 16-45 wobbles, a lot. Whether more or less than new, I can't say, but I know I couldn't detect a detrimental effect at 6mp, but I can at 16mp. Maybe the lens got worse between those two generations of bodies, or maybe 16mp is just higher enough resolution for it to matter. But significantly, nobody has been able to identify how to fix a wobbly 16-45, so if you get one, make sure you can return it if even slightly wobbly. The 17-50 Tamron lacks quick shift, which is annoying and seemingly dangerous (something feels like it's going to break every time you crank on the focus without remembering to disengage it.) I've had some erratic behavior from it (seemingly losing contact with the camera, although that only affected AF, turning it into MF for a while), and both my bodies need a 10 (or maybe more if it was easily avaialble) adjustment. I have no issues with the optical quality, however. Don't know anything about the Sigma, but I believe the other two are smaller/lighter if that matters.

07-23-2014, 05:51 PM	#12
Kayaker-J Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: N.E. Ohio Posts: 535	@tibbitts... From a new (secondhand) Tamron zoom owner, thanks for the tip; I'll be careful. I will put up with a fair amount of minor grief for better IQ -- just my bias.

07-23-2014, 08:24 PM	#13
mr.b.snowden Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 683	My two cents: the Sigma 17-50 is a great piece of gear. I just got my used copy last week and am surprised by how sharp it is at f/2.8 throughout the entire focal range. The AF is fast and quiet and the lens is built solidly. Shooting without a hood doesn't affect the lens much either. My only gripe is that I wish the MFD was less (I also have the Sigma 20-40 f/2.8) as I love getting the wide angle distortion. No real issues with focus, as setting my copy to +4 yields sharp photos across the entire range, compared to my Sigma 20-40 that has trouble on both ends with a set adjustment.

07-23-2014, 08:40 PM - 1 Like	#14
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	The Tamron 17-50/2.8 works very well on the K-01. It doesn't have the exceptional rendering, color, quick-shift, WR or flare resistance of the DA 20-40, but gives excellent value for a third of the price, and makes a great event lens.

07-24-2014, 03:03 AM	#15
mtux Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: the Netherlands Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,444	I had and have the DA18-135, and went this way by buying the Tamron lens. Even though it's a sharp and nice lens. After one year, I ended up deciding to sell the Tamron. because I think when I'm on zoom, having more reach and convenient of WR is more usable for me. and for those important shots, I have one of limiteds in my pocket/bag. Also the DA18-135 is no slouch in that range! even wide open! and You just need to step it down to f/5.6 for very good sharpness. and you have to step down the Tamron to f/4 for sharpness. and then for low light, I prefer my DA35ltd even the DA35 plasticy focuses and works better in low light condition.