Tamron 17-50 or DA* 16-50

iunknown · 06-25-2008, 01:59 PM

I burnt my hand by buying DA* 16-50 and returned it to the seller and went with 2 lens combination (Pentax 12-24 and Sigma 24-70) because the shop didn't have any more DA* 16-50 in stock. They also didn't have any Tamron 17-50.

I am really happy with these two lenses and covers a lot more range (for more money !!!). Over the last weekedn, I took more than 500 shots with these two lenses and they seems to be great (atleast for my eyes)

Question: How is Tamron 17-50 compared to DA* 16-50? I read some threads about comparing these two, but trying to get more info on this. I have the following questions:

1) What is the probability that we get a good copy of DA* 16-50. Did Pentax fixed all the issues, so that all the new copies are good (compared to last years models)

2) In terms of image quality which one is better Pentax DA* 16-50 or Tamron 17-50? I heard people claiming Tamron is sharper than 16-50 even at 17mm f/2.8.

3) Is Tamron build quality is so much lower than Pentax ?

Thanking you in advance,

-MC

BBear · 06-25-2008, 02:29 PM

The million $$ questions...

daacon · 06-25-2008, 02:43 PM

I think you really have to try them both out. I don't think it's a fair statement to say either Tamron or Pentax has every quality issue fixed. I think given a good copy of both you would be hard pressed to tell the difference for IQ - then it comes down to what is important. DA* gives you weather sealing and SDM. Is it worth the extra $$ for some yes for others no.

So I am not sure you are going to get a definitive answer. People can only suggest what they did in similar circumstances. I went for the DA* 16-50.

Gooshin · 06-25-2008, 02:49 PM

i personaly think that internally focusing lenses are better and more rugged than those that "zoom out"

particulary when you drop one.. having a solid cylindrical exterior means less chance of something getting bent.. like the extended tube.

plus you get SDM and Weather Sealing.

personaly i would not be afraid of falling off a boat with a weather sealed lens and body.

flyer · 06-25-2008, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

personaly i would not be afraid of falling off a boat with a weather sealed lens and body.

I'll try to stay dry and take pictures of you falling...

In real life, I don't mind rain on my cameras WHEN IT CAN'T BE AVOIDED, but I'd be worried if it fell in water. It would hopefully survived, but the weather sealing is not made for underwater photography.

maxwell1295 · 06-25-2008, 04:41 PM

How does the Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro compare to these two lenses?

iunknown · 06-25-2008, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by maxwell1295

How does the Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro compare to these two lenses?

Thats a question which I tried to get answer from many people. All the replies which I got are telling that Tamron 17-50 is shaper than Sigma. Somehow the Sigma 18-50 is not getting the same attention as the oother two (Pentax 16-50 and Tamron 17-50)

-MC

Bernard Yeo · 06-25-2008, 07:17 PM

I used to have the 16-50 and now own the 17-50. In terms of built, the 16-50 is so much better as the 17-50 does feel a little like the 18-250 ..

Of course, 16-50 is also weather proof, and that makes quite a difference.

But I like the zoom ring better in the 17-50. I can't understand why the focus ring is so much bigger than the zoom ring in the 16-50 that makes it quite difficult to extend the lens. Maybe it's something else.

I also tried the Sigma 18-50 (a friend of mine has it), and thought the built from my perspective is in this order 17-50 < 18-50 < 16-50.

Maxington · 06-25-2008, 07:24 PM

I've got the Tamron 28-75, and the DA* 16-50, and I can tell you the DA* does noticably beat the Tamron in image quality. My girlfriend, who I handed down the Tamron to, gets somewhat annoyed about the difference, and even more annoyed when I tell her she got a $500 lens for free so put up with it.

From reports the Tamron 28-75 is about on par with the 17-50. I just bought the 17-50 for the girlfriends mother actually, I should see if I can take some comparison photos sometime, would be interesting.

All 3 are good lenses though.

iunknown · 06-25-2008, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Bernard Yeo

I used to have the 16-50 and now own the 17-50. In terms of built, the 16-50 is so much better as the 17-50 does feel a little like the 18-250 ..

Of course, 16-50 is also weather proof, and that makes quite a difference.

But I like the zoom ring better in the 17-50. I can't understand why the focus ring is so much bigger than the zoom ring in the 16-50 that makes it quite difficult to extend the lens. Maybe it's something else.

What about the image quality? Does Tamron 17-50 equal or exceed the image quality of 16-50?

I may not need the weather proof feature (thats what I think for now.....). The price difference between these two lenses are $200.

-MC

paparay · 06-25-2008, 11:52 PM

See https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/29218-tamron-1...throwdown.html

06-25-2008, 01:59 PM	#1
iunknown Inactive Account Join Date: May 2008 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 94	*Tamron 17-50 or DA 16-50** I burnt my hand by buying DA* 16-50 and returned it to the seller and went with 2 lens combination (Pentax 12-24 and Sigma 24-70) because the shop didn't have any more DA* 16-50 in stock. They also didn't have any Tamron 17-50. I am really happy with these two lenses and covers a lot more range (for more money !!!). Over the last weekedn, I took more than 500 shots with these two lenses and they seems to be great (atleast for my eyes) Question: How is Tamron 17-50 compared to DA* 16-50? I read some threads about comparing these two, but trying to get more info on this. I have the following questions: 1) What is the probability that we get a good copy of DA* 16-50. Did Pentax fixed all the issues, so that all the new copies are good (compared to last years models) 2) In terms of image quality which one is better Pentax DA* 16-50 or Tamron 17-50? I heard people claiming Tamron is sharper than 16-50 even at 17mm f/2.8. 3) Is Tamron build quality is so much lower than Pentax ? Thanking you in advance, -MC

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tamron 17-50mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Sigma 17-70mm, which lens for my trip to Greece?	macky112	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	11-20-2011 03:08 PM
For Sale - Sold: K10D, Tamron 28-75 F2.8, Tamron 75-300 F4-5.6, Super-Tak 50/1.4, AF-360 Flash	maconmatt	Sold Items	5	10-25-2010 06:18 AM
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

06-25-2008, 02:29 PM	#2
BBear Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: CT / NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 822	The million $$ questions...

06-25-2008, 02:43 PM	#3
daacon Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Alberta,Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 20,914	I think you really have to try them both out. I don't think it's a fair statement to say either Tamron or Pentax has every quality issue fixed. I think given a good copy of both you would be hard pressed to tell the difference for IQ - then it comes down to what is important. DA* gives you weather sealing and SDM. Is it worth the extra $$ for some yes for others no. So I am not sure you are going to get a definitive answer. People can only suggest what they did in similar circumstances. I went for the DA* 16-50.

06-25-2008, 02:49 PM	#4
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	i personaly think that internally focusing lenses are better and more rugged than those that "zoom out" particulary when you drop one.. having a solid cylindrical exterior means less chance of something getting bent.. like the extended tube. plus you get SDM and Weather Sealing. personaly i would not be afraid of falling off a boat with a weather sealed lens and body.

06-25-2008, 04:28 PM	#5
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,013	Originally posted by Gooshin personaly i would not be afraid of falling off a boat with a weather sealed lens and body. I'll try to stay dry and take pictures of you falling... In real life, I don't mind rain on my cameras WHEN IT CAN'T BE AVOIDED, but I'd be worried if it fell in water. It would hopefully survived, but the weather sealing is not made for underwater photography.

06-25-2008, 04:41 PM	#6
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703	How does the Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro compare to these two lenses?

06-25-2008, 05:12 PM	#7
iunknown Inactive Account Join Date: May 2008 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 94 Original Poster	Originally posted by maxwell1295 How does the Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro compare to these two lenses? Thats a question which I tried to get answer from many people. All the replies which I got are telling that Tamron 17-50 is shaper than Sigma. Somehow the Sigma 18-50 is not getting the same attention as the oother two (Pentax 16-50 and Tamron 17-50) -MC

06-25-2008, 07:17 PM	#8
Bernard Yeo Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Singapore Posts: 62	I used to have the 16-50 and now own the 17-50. In terms of built, the 16-50 is so much better as the 17-50 does feel a little like the 18-250 .. Of course, 16-50 is also weather proof, and that makes quite a difference. But I like the zoom ring better in the 17-50. I can't understand why the focus ring is so much bigger than the zoom ring in the 16-50 that makes it quite difficult to extend the lens. Maybe it's something else. I also tried the Sigma 18-50 (a friend of mine has it), and thought the built from my perspective is in this order 17-50 < 18-50 < 16-50.

06-25-2008, 07:24 PM	#9
Maxington Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 255	I've got the Tamron 28-75, and the DA* 16-50, and I can tell you the DA* does noticably beat the Tamron in image quality. My girlfriend, who I handed down the Tamron to, gets somewhat annoyed about the difference, and even more annoyed when I tell her she got a $500 lens for free so put up with it. From reports the Tamron 28-75 is about on par with the 17-50. I just bought the 17-50 for the girlfriends mother actually, I should see if I can take some comparison photos sometime, would be interesting. All 3 are good lenses though.

06-25-2008, 08:32 PM	#10
iunknown Inactive Account Join Date: May 2008 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 94 Original Poster	Originally posted by Bernard Yeo I used to have the 16-50 and now own the 17-50. In terms of built, the 16-50 is so much better as the 17-50 does feel a little like the 18-250 .. Of course, 16-50 is also weather proof, and that makes quite a difference. But I like the zoom ring better in the 17-50. I can't understand why the focus ring is so much bigger than the zoom ring in the 16-50 that makes it quite difficult to extend the lens. Maybe it's something else. What about the image quality? Does Tamron 17-50 equal or exceed the image quality of 16-50? I may not need the weather proof feature (thats what I think for now.....). The price difference between these two lenses are $200. -MC

06-25-2008, 11:52 PM	#11
paparay Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA - Arkansas Posts: 40	See https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/29218-tamron-1...throwdown.html