[hll]

could we think the tokina as pentax 16-50 and compare its sharpness to
tamron?????
Tokina AF 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX (Nikon) - Lens Test Report / Review
Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (Nikon) - Test Report / Review
if we could, i give up buying 16-50 and 16-45 is the keeper for me.
thanks
halil

[metalfab]

Don't forget the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX ...

[paparay]

It looks as if the Tamron beat them all, including the 16-45. Am I reading the results wrong?
Ray

[metalfab]

The reviews give you a good idea of how the lenses are but, I still like looking at real world shots over charts and graphs.

[benjikan]

The Tamron is an incredible lens at any price point. If I did not already have the 16-45 and the 16-50, I would get the Tamron. The Pentax 16-50 is qualitatively on par with the Tamron in terms of center and near center resolution, but the Tamron corner resolution is superior. One of the reasons I sold my Canon 28-70 when using Canon was to purchase the Tamron 28-75 which I felt was superior, lighter and less expensive.

Tamron make some incredible lenses. The 90 mm Macro is probably one of the best out there. It like the 28-75 are classics.

Even though there is only a 1 mm difference between the Tamron and Pentax, that is significant for me. That is another reason for keeping the Pentax's.

Ben

[hll]

yes ben, 1 mm is significant for me, too.
i give importance of sharpness, bokeh and wide angle.
i have 16-45 which has 1 mm wider than 17-50 and better bokeh, but it is slower and less sharper. actually my only complaint about tamron is its bad bokeh.
ben, do you think 28-75 has better bokeh than 17-50???
thanks
halil

[benjikan]

yes ben, 1 mm is significant for me, too.
i give importance of sharpness, bokeh and wide angle.
i have 16-45 which has 1 mm wider than 17-50 and better bokeh, but it is slower and less sharper. actually my only complaint about tamron is its bad bokeh.
ben, do you think 28-75 has better bokeh than 17-50???
thanks
halil

Hello Halil;

In my opinion the Tamron 28-75 is one of the best lenses Tamron ever designed. As to the bokeh of the 17-50 Tamron, I don't agree that it isn't pleasant. That is a subjective opinion of course.

Ben

[hll]

here are some pictures of tamron from flickr 17-50 group pool. i found the bokeh harsh. what do you think????
links are
Tulips on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Are you staring at me? on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Bright tulips on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Flower on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[Buddha Jones]

WOW!! That bokeh is very unfavorable indeed. It's about as smooth as sandpaper.

[hll]

yeah, if you look at the photozone.de 's sample you can see more unfavorable bokehs.
i really don't know what to do.

[metalfab]

yeah, if you look at the photozone.de 's sample you can see more unfavorable bokehs.
i really don't know what to do.

This is all I have for you atm bokeh-wise. Maybe later today the rain will lift and I can get some more photos.

Sigma 18-50 EX

[darthku]

Here are some shots I did w/ the 17-50
32mm, 2.8f, 1/45, ISO800




38mm, F/2.8, ISO1600

[pentagor]

I think, that 1x - 5x lenses are wide angle lenses and are designed for a large DOF shots (landscape...). For better bokeh, use 70mm and up focal length lenses.

[jake123]

When did so many people get the Tamron 17-50? I thought there were underexposure and focus problems?

[Teo D'Or]

here are some pictures of tammy. i found the bokeh harsh. what do you think????

Hello. I think your copy has a centering defect.
Here is a snapshot with mine. 50mm f/2.8