Tamron 17-50 vs. FA 24-90 vs. DA 18-135

JPT · 03-06-2015, 06:42 AM

This is a request for advice with a purchase. You probably think the selection of lenses in the title is a bit weird, so let me explain.

Most of my lenses are primes but I’ve been looking for a decent standard zoom to use when I don’t want to change lenses a lot, especially when travelling. I have a holiday to Europe coming up, so that’s why i’m thinking about it now. I’m trying to decide between the following options
- Keeping my FA 24-90, which I would otherwise sell for about $15,000 yen ($125)
- Getting a DA 18-135, which would cost me about $25,000 ($210) because it would be part of a kit with a K-5 II
- Getting a Tamron 17-50 f2.8, which I had never considered in the same price range as those others, but was surprised to find only costs 25,000 yen ($210)

My main concern with the FA 24-90 is it is restrictive at the wide end. The DA 18-135 has a lot of convenient features, but I’m not sure it is much better than the kit. The Tamron would be my first third-party lens, which probably shouldn’t make me worry, but it does. I’m also a bit concerned that every review mentions the build quality as a drawback.

So, I have a few questions if anyone has been patient enough to get this far.

1. Does anyone know whether the Tamron outperforms the FA 24-90 in general?
2. What functions are affected by using a third-party lens? Are focusing micro-adjustments more of a problem?
3. Is the Tamron’s build quality really anything to worry about? Perhaps this is only mentioned in reviews because they are comparing to the Pentax and Sigma f2.8 zooms, which are much heavier and more expensive. My expectations as a $210 lens are that it would have mid-range build quality, like a DA 18-135.

Any thoughts would be helpful.

P.S. I’ll probably be using this on a K-5 II mostly. My main objective it to get nice prints, at a maximum of A3, but usually much smaller. I live in a very “urban” place and mainly take pictures of city scenes, architecture and the usual family shots.

**jrpower10** · 03-06-2015, 07:07 AM - **1 Like**

As an all-in-one travel zoom I would think the DA18-135 would be the better option. The tamron might be better optically, I don't know as I don't own either, but I think there are times you're going to want more reach than the 17-50 gives you. Guess you could check your photos with the 24-90 and see which end of the range you use more. If you don't really use the long end then maybe the 17-50 is OK. I guess the other consideration is the 18-135 has weather-sealing whereas the Tamron doesn't.

normhead · 03-06-2015, 07:26 AM - **1 Like**

The 18-135 is very close to the Tamron Optically, and it goes to 135mm..
The Tamron is optically marginally better then the 18-135 and it goes to 2.8.

My wife shots beside me with the Tamron when I'm shooting the 18-135 many times a year and we see little difference. IN fact she's always claiming one of my pictures is hers and I have to show her the exif to convince her differently. So to me, it's not an IQ issue, it's which of the above two statements appeals to you more.

You can't do this with the Tamron - Pentax K20D DA 18-135@ 135mm

Or this

Those are both things I like to do.
http://s1132.photobucket.com/user/Norm_Head/slideshow/Pentax_forum/Sample_by...name/DA_18-135

But the Tamron does have it's place...

http://s1132.photobucket.com/user/Norm_Head/slideshow/Pentax_forum/Sample_by...e/Tamron-17-50

Markovo · 03-06-2015, 07:33 AM

Tamron 17-50 is a great lense. I own one myself. Great sharpness, IQ, Abberations, Build Quality, Price, etc... Only the autofocus is a bit stupid, but i dont use it much anyway. I have used 18-135 and in terms of IQ, Tamron just outperforms it in every way possible.

CarlJF · 03-06-2015, 07:34 AM

1) Can't say
2) Micro adjustments will work. In body optical correction will not.
3) Build quality is about the same as a standard DA lens, no better or worse.

**THoog** · 03-06-2015, 07:35 AM

I have both the Tamron and the 18-135. As Norm has said many times, the 18-135 is MUCH better than the kit lens. Its sweet spot is around 24mm, but it's better than the 18-55 across the range. The word that usually comes up about the Tamron is "workhorse". For indoors work, the f/2.8 Tamron will outperform the 18-135. The thing you lose most with the Tammy is built-in lens corrections. Micro focus adjustments work fine (in some cases, they have to - my K-r was always tricky with FF/BF with the Tamron, but no other body I own has had that problem). I've found when people say "build quality", they usually just mean "heavy". The Tamron is lightweight; the only quality issue I've ever had was a rattling hood bayonet, which was easy to fix. Otherwise, my workhorse has long outlived a similar Sigma lens which shredded its zoom gearing after a couple years.

mee · 03-06-2015, 07:54 AM

Outdoors, especially in lit areas the 18-135 (quiet focusing DC motor, longer range, even though after around 70mm it is somewhat problematic)
Indoors, well lit or not the 17-50 (screwdrive focus, f/2.8 across the board, less focal range)

There isn't a 100% obvious pick.. you have to see which one is more valuable to you for your shooting style.

VoiceOfReason · 03-06-2015, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by JPT

This is a request for advice with a purchase. You probably think the selection of lenses in the title is a bit weird, so let me explain.

Most of my lenses are primes but I’ve been looking for a decent standard zoom to use when I don’t want to change lenses a lot, especially when travelling. I have a holiday to Europe coming up, so that’s why i’m thinking about it now. I’m trying to decide between the following options
- Keeping my FA 24-90, which I would otherwise sell for about $15,000 yen ($125)
- Getting a DA 18-135, which would cost me about $25,000 ($210) because it would be part of a kit with a K-5 II
- Getting a Tamron 17-50 f2.8, which I had never considered in the same price range as those others, but was surprised to find only costs 25,000 yen ($210)

My main concern with the FA 24-90 is it is restrictive at the wide end. The DA 18-135 has a lot of convenient features, but I’m not sure it is much better than the kit. The Tamron would be my first third-party lens, which probably shouldn’t make me worry, but it does. I’m also a bit concerned that every review mentions the build quality as a drawback.

So, I have a few questions if anyone has been patient enough to get this far.

1. Does anyone know whether the Tamron outperforms the FA 24-90 in general?
2. What functions are affected by using a third-party lens? Are focusing micro-adjustments more of a problem?
3. Is the Tamron’s build quality really anything to worry about? Perhaps this is only mentioned in reviews because they are comparing to the Pentax and Sigma f2.8 zooms, which are much heavier and more expensive. My expectations as a $210 lens are that it would have mid-range build quality, like a DA 18-135.

Any thoughts would be helpful.

P.S. I’ll probably be using this on a K-5 II mostly. My main objective it to get nice prints, at a maximum of A3, but usually much smaller. I live in a very “urban” place and mainly take pictures of city scenes, architecture and the usual family shots.

I did a trip to Europe last fall and took my Pentax 18-135, Tamron 17-50 and Tamron 70-200, Sigma 8-16, and Sigma 18-35. The 18-135 was on the K3 and with me about 90% of the time. I got some great pics that you could pixel peep on. I should have posted more of them to DA because I can't find them on my work computer here.

Here are some taken with it last year:

Heading Out by Voice0fReason on DeviantArt <-- taken with K3

Sunset at Shell Beach by Voice0fReason on DeviantArt <-- taken with K3

Ir08 by Voice0fReason on DeviantArt <-- taken with K-01 converted to full spectrum and an IR 720 filter

SLP at Night by Voice0fReason on DeviantArt <-- taken with K5 classic

SLP Church by Voice0fReason on DeviantArt <-- taken with K5 classic

**TER-OR** · 03-06-2015, 08:23 AM

I've travelled with the K5 and 18-135, I think it's a nice all-around zoom for travel. Weather sealing is always good to have, and it's relatively compact. When walking around, except when we walk along the river to see migratory birds etc. I use the 18-135 most of the time.

I'd probably keep the FA and get an 18-135, though since they have a lot of overlap it might be tough to justify. It sounds like the above users consider the Tamron and 18-135 as roughly equal, so I'd likely chose the WR quiet option.

For what it's worth, I have not used my 16-45 much at all since getting the 18-135 though the 16-45 is probably a bit better indoors, being a bit wider.

JPT · 03-06-2015, 08:32 AM

Thanks for all the answers so far. It looks like there is nothing to fear quality-wise with either lens. They are both better than the kit lens. I should clarify that I will be carrying a few lenses when I travel. I'm just looking for the lens I have on the camera by default. If I went for the 17-50, I would probably bring my 10-70 FE and FA77 as well. If I went for the 18-135, I'd probably bring the 10-17 FE and the FA 35 for low-light work. If I stick with the 24-90, I'll probably bring my DA 21.

The situation I want to avoid is like when I went to Paris and I was changing between my DA21 and DA40 at every street corner. Or when I went to America thinking the kit lens would be good enough and came back with very disappointing pictures.

**Rondec** · 03-06-2015, 08:34 AM

I think the 18-135 is a fine lens. The reason to get the Tamron is if you need the faster aperture. Tamron will probably be sharper at similar apertures, but obviously won't have the same focal lengths available and by all accounts has a lot more spotty auto focus.

yusuf · 03-06-2015, 08:55 AM

While 18-135 is a good walk around lens, it's in general agreement that 18-135 is optically mediocre and Tamron 17-50 is a great performer.

**Rondec** · 03-06-2015, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by yusuf

While 18-135 is a good walk around lens, it's in general agreement that 18-135 is optically mediocre and Tamron 17-50 is a great performer.

I would say that the 18-135 has a lot more copy variation than some other lenses. My brother has a copy and I thought it was quite nice. Very contrasty. Auto focus is zippy. Borders were a little soft between 100 and 135mm, but I thought as a walk around lens I would have been pretty satisfied with it.

Superzooms will never match up with f2.8 zooms with regard to wide open performance, but I think the 18-135 has gotten a bad rap due to the abysmal copy that Photozone reviewed. Dan (Audiobomber) posted a comparison to the Tamron 18-250 (which usually gets pretty good marks for a super zoom) and the DA 55-300 and his 18-135 was at least as good or better than both of those.

yusuf · 03-06-2015, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I would say that the 18-135 has a lot more copy variation than some other lenses. My brother has a copy and I thought it was quite nice. Very contrasty. Auto focus is zippy. Borders were a little soft between 100 and 135mm, but I thought as a walk around lens I would have been pretty satisfied with it.

Superzooms will never match up with f2.8 zooms with regard to wide open performance, but I think the 18-135 has gotten a bad rap due to the abysmal copy that Photozone reviewed. Dan (Audiobomber) posted a comparison to the Tamron 18-250 (which usually gets pretty good marks for a super zoom) and the DA 55-300 and his 18-135 was at least as good or better than both of those.

Actually my observation comes from the own experience. We did performed a comparison quite some time back when 18-135 was introduced. I again checked photozone review after your post, and possibly he tested the worst copy of 18-135, we ourselves were disappointed with 18-135 as he imported it from the Singapore (no local Pentax presence at that time) for Himalaya trip. You are right, it's a good walk around lens, but it lags behind when compared to Tamron.

Volker76 · 03-06-2015, 10:23 AM

for streets, I use my tamron, even with a bag full of lenses on my back. It has a nice range and in urban areas I haven't had the need to go beyond 50mm so far. While in churches&similar areas where using the flash is prohibited the fact that it is pretty wide open with 2.8 helps.

03-06-2015, 06:42 AM	#1
JPT Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,821	Tamron 17-50 vs. FA 24-90 vs. DA 18-135 This is a request for advice with a purchase. You probably think the selection of lenses in the title is a bit weird, so let me explain. Most of my lenses are primes but I’ve been looking for a decent standard zoom to use when I don’t want to change lenses a lot, especially when travelling. I have a holiday to Europe coming up, so that’s why i’m thinking about it now. I’m trying to decide between the following options - Keeping my FA 24-90, which I would otherwise sell for about $15,000 yen ($125) - Getting a DA 18-135, which would cost me about $25,000 ($210) because it would be part of a kit with a K-5 II - Getting a Tamron 17-50 f2.8, which I had never considered in the same price range as those others, but was surprised to find only costs 25,000 yen ($210) My main concern with the FA 24-90 is it is restrictive at the wide end. The DA 18-135 has a lot of convenient features, but I’m not sure it is much better than the kit. The Tamron would be my first third-party lens, which probably shouldn’t make me worry, but it does. I’m also a bit concerned that every review mentions the build quality as a drawback. So, I have a few questions if anyone has been patient enough to get this far. 1. Does anyone know whether the Tamron outperforms the FA 24-90 in general? 2. What functions are affected by using a third-party lens? Are focusing micro-adjustments more of a problem? 3. Is the Tamron’s build quality really anything to worry about? Perhaps this is only mentioned in reviews because they are comparing to the Pentax and Sigma f2.8 zooms, which are much heavier and more expensive. My expectations as a $210 lens are that it would have mid-range build quality, like a DA 18-135. Any thoughts would be helpful. P.S. I’ll probably be using this on a K-5 II mostly. My main objective it to get nice prints, at a maximum of A3, but usually much smaller. I live in a very “urban” place and mainly take pictures of city scenes, architecture and the usual family shots.

03-06-2015, 07:26 AM - 1 Like	#3
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	The 18-135 is very close to the Tamron Optically, and it goes to 135mm.. The Tamron is optically marginally better then the 18-135 and it goes to 2.8. My wife shots beside me with the Tamron when I'm shooting the 18-135 many times a year and we see little difference. IN fact she's always claiming one of my pictures is hers and I have to show her the exif to convince her differently. So to me, it's not an IQ issue, it's which of the above two statements appeals to you more. You can't do this with the Tamron - Pentax K20D DA 18-135@ 135mm Or this Those are both things I like to do. http://s1132.photobucket.com/user/Norm_Head/slideshow/Pentax_forum/Sample_by...name/DA_18-135 But the Tamron does have it's place... http://s1132.photobucket.com/user/Norm_Head/slideshow/Pentax_forum/Sample_by...e/Tamron-17-50 Last edited by normhead; 03-06-2015 at 08:36 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-5 with Sigma 17-70 vs 17-50 vs Pentax 18-135 vs Sigma 18-250	dr_romix	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	20	08-25-2012 07:19 AM
Extreme Corner Performance Shootout - FA 43mm vs DA18-135 vs DA*50-135	chesebert	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	05-22-2012 09:38 AM
Tamron 17-50 (€300) VS. Sigma 17-70 f4.5(€380) VS. DA 18-135 (€450)	Tomm	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	03-25-2012 10:01 PM
Comparison images Tamron 17-50 vs DA 18-55II?	FHPhotographer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	03-06-2010 06:20 AM
Pentax 24-90 vs. Tamron 24-135	scottax1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	07-17-2007 09:31 PM

03-06-2015, 07:07 AM - 1 Like	#2
jrpower10 Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Richland, Washington, USA Posts: 935	As an all-in-one travel zoom I would think the DA18-135 would be the better option. The tamron might be better optically, I don't know as I don't own either, but I think there are times you're going to want more reach than the 17-50 gives you. Guess you could check your photos with the 24-90 and see which end of the range you use more. If you don't really use the long end then maybe the 17-50 is OK. I guess the other consideration is the 18-135 has weather-sealing whereas the Tamron doesn't.

03-06-2015, 07:33 AM	#4
Markovo Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Bulgaria Posts: 149	Tamron 17-50 is a great lense. I own one myself. Great sharpness, IQ, Abberations, Build Quality, Price, etc... Only the autofocus is a bit stupid, but i dont use it much anyway. I have used 18-135 and in terms of IQ, Tamron just outperforms it in every way possible.

03-06-2015, 07:34 AM	#5
CarlJF Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Quebec City Posts: 1,185	1) Can't say 2) Micro adjustments will work. In body optical correction will not. 3) Build quality is about the same as a standard DA lens, no better or worse.

03-06-2015, 07:35 AM	#6
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	I have both the Tamron and the 18-135. As Norm has said many times, the 18-135 is MUCH better than the kit lens. Its sweet spot is around 24mm, but it's better than the 18-55 across the range. The word that usually comes up about the Tamron is "workhorse". For indoors work, the f/2.8 Tamron will outperform the 18-135. The thing you lose most with the Tammy is built-in lens corrections. Micro focus adjustments work fine (in some cases, they have to - my K-r was always tricky with FF/BF with the Tamron, but no other body I own has had that problem). I've found when people say "build quality", they usually just mean "heavy". The Tamron is lightweight; the only quality issue I've ever had was a rattling hood bayonet, which was easy to fix. Otherwise, my workhorse has long outlived a similar Sigma lens which shredded its zoom gearing after a couple years.

03-06-2015, 07:54 AM	#7
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Outdoors, especially in lit areas the 18-135 (quiet focusing DC motor, longer range, even though after around 70mm it is somewhat problematic) Indoors, well lit or not the 17-50 (screwdrive focus, f/2.8 across the board, less focal range) There isn't a 100% obvious pick.. you have to see which one is more valuable to you for your shooting style.

03-06-2015, 07:54 AM	#8
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Originally posted by JPT This is a request for advice with a purchase. You probably think the selection of lenses in the title is a bit weird, so let me explain. Most of my lenses are primes but I’ve been looking for a decent standard zoom to use when I don’t want to change lenses a lot, especially when travelling. I have a holiday to Europe coming up, so that’s why i’m thinking about it now. I’m trying to decide between the following options - Keeping my FA 24-90, which I would otherwise sell for about $15,000 yen ($125) - Getting a DA 18-135, which would cost me about $25,000 ($210) because it would be part of a kit with a K-5 II - Getting a Tamron 17-50 f2.8, which I had never considered in the same price range as those others, but was surprised to find only costs 25,000 yen ($210) My main concern with the FA 24-90 is it is restrictive at the wide end. The DA 18-135 has a lot of convenient features, but I’m not sure it is much better than the kit. The Tamron would be my first third-party lens, which probably shouldn’t make me worry, but it does. I’m also a bit concerned that every review mentions the build quality as a drawback. So, I have a few questions if anyone has been patient enough to get this far. 1. Does anyone know whether the Tamron outperforms the FA 24-90 in general? 2. What functions are affected by using a third-party lens? Are focusing micro-adjustments more of a problem? 3. Is the Tamron’s build quality really anything to worry about? Perhaps this is only mentioned in reviews because they are comparing to the Pentax and Sigma f2.8 zooms, which are much heavier and more expensive. My expectations as a $210 lens are that it would have mid-range build quality, like a DA 18-135. Any thoughts would be helpful. P.S. I’ll probably be using this on a K-5 II mostly. My main objective it to get nice prints, at a maximum of A3, but usually much smaller. I live in a very “urban” place and mainly take pictures of city scenes, architecture and the usual family shots. I did a trip to Europe last fall and took my Pentax 18-135, Tamron 17-50 and Tamron 70-200, Sigma 8-16, and Sigma 18-35. The 18-135 was on the K3 and with me about 90% of the time. I got some great pics that you could pixel peep on. I should have posted more of them to DA because I can't find them on my work computer here. Here are some taken with it last year: Heading Out by Voice0fReason on DeviantArt <-- taken with K3 Sunset at Shell Beach by Voice0fReason on DeviantArt <-- taken with K3 Ir08 by Voice0fReason on DeviantArt <-- taken with K-01 converted to full spectrum and an IR 720 filter SLP at Night by Voice0fReason on DeviantArt <-- taken with K5 classic SLP Church by Voice0fReason on DeviantArt <-- taken with K5 classic

03-06-2015, 08:23 AM	#9
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	I've travelled with the K5 and 18-135, I think it's a nice all-around zoom for travel. Weather sealing is always good to have, and it's relatively compact. When walking around, except when we walk along the river to see migratory birds etc. I use the 18-135 most of the time. I'd probably keep the FA and get an 18-135, though since they have a lot of overlap it might be tough to justify. It sounds like the above users consider the Tamron and 18-135 as roughly equal, so I'd likely chose the WR quiet option. For what it's worth, I have not used my 16-45 much at all since getting the 18-135 though the 16-45 is probably a bit better indoors, being a bit wider.

03-06-2015, 08:32 AM	#10
JPT Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,821 Original Poster	Thanks for all the answers so far. It looks like there is nothing to fear quality-wise with either lens. They are both better than the kit lens. I should clarify that I will be carrying a few lenses when I travel. I'm just looking for the lens I have on the camera by default. If I went for the 17-50, I would probably bring my 10-70 FE and FA77 as well. If I went for the 18-135, I'd probably bring the 10-17 FE and the FA 35 for low-light work. If I stick with the 24-90, I'll probably bring my DA 21. The situation I want to avoid is like when I went to Paris and I was changing between my DA21 and DA40 at every street corner. Or when I went to America thinking the kit lens would be good enough and came back with very disappointing pictures.

03-06-2015, 08:34 AM	#11
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	I think the 18-135 is a fine lens. The reason to get the Tamron is if you need the faster aperture. Tamron will probably be sharper at similar apertures, but obviously won't have the same focal lengths available and by all accounts has a lot more spotty auto focus.

03-06-2015, 08:55 AM	#12
yusuf Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Palo Alto, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,497	While 18-135 is a good walk around lens, it's in general agreement that 18-135 is optically mediocre and Tamron 17-50 is a great performer.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-06-2015, 09:04 AM	#13
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by yusuf While 18-135 is a good walk around lens, it's in general agreement that 18-135 is optically mediocre and Tamron 17-50 is a great performer. I would say that the 18-135 has a lot more copy variation than some other lenses. My brother has a copy and I thought it was quite nice. Very contrasty. Auto focus is zippy. Borders were a little soft between 100 and 135mm, but I thought as a walk around lens I would have been pretty satisfied with it. Superzooms will never match up with f2.8 zooms with regard to wide open performance, but I think the 18-135 has gotten a bad rap due to the abysmal copy that Photozone reviewed. Dan (Audiobomber) posted a comparison to the Tamron 18-250 (which usually gets pretty good marks for a super zoom) and the DA 55-300 and his 18-135 was at least as good or better than both of those.

03-06-2015, 09:15 AM	#14
yusuf Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Palo Alto, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,497	Originally posted by Rondec I would say that the 18-135 has a lot more copy variation than some other lenses. My brother has a copy and I thought it was quite nice. Very contrasty. Auto focus is zippy. Borders were a little soft between 100 and 135mm, but I thought as a walk around lens I would have been pretty satisfied with it. Superzooms will never match up with f2.8 zooms with regard to wide open performance, but I think the 18-135 has gotten a bad rap due to the abysmal copy that Photozone reviewed. Dan (Audiobomber) posted a comparison to the Tamron 18-250 (which usually gets pretty good marks for a super zoom) and the DA 55-300 and his 18-135 was at least as good or better than both of those. Actually my observation comes from the own experience. We did performed a comparison quite some time back when 18-135 was introduced. I again checked photozone review after your post, and possibly he tested the worst copy of 18-135, we ourselves were disappointed with 18-135 as he imported it from the Singapore (no local Pentax presence at that time) for Himalaya trip. You are right, it's a good walk around lens, but it lags behind when compared to Tamron.

03-06-2015, 10:23 AM	#15
Volker76 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 211	for streets, I use my tamron, even with a bag full of lenses on my back. It has a nice range and in urban areas I haven't had the need to go beyond 50mm so far. While in churches&similar areas where using the flash is prohibited the fact that it is pretty wide open with 2.8 helps.