Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-28-2016, 10:20 AM   #1
New Member
Marcus_H's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13
Deciding on new Primary Lens [Pentax 16-85 vs Sigma 17-50 vs Tamron 17-50]

So I just sold my 18-55 WR lens, and I'm looking for a new primary lens to use with my Pentax K 3 ii. The other two lenses I have are a Pentax 50mm and the Pentax HD 50-300.

Currently I'm trying to decide between three lenses. The Pentax HD 16-85, the Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 17-50.

So far the reasons that I like the Pentax is that it has the weather sealing, a little extra reach and a little wider angle. However, it's a little pricier and the 3.5-5.6 aperture isn't ideal.

Looking at the Sigma and Tamron, the lenses look very similar although the Tamron is slightly more expensive on B&H. I like that both of them have the f2.8, but neither are weather sealed (as far as I know) which is a bummer and they don't have quite the same zoom range. Although I'm not as worried about the reach since I have my 50-300.

If any of you guys have experience with these lenses and could help me decide that would be greatly appreciated.

12-28-2016, 10:34 AM   #2
Pentaxian
The Squirrel Mafia's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,046
I debated a long time between those 2 lenses & came to the conclusion that the Pentax 16-85mm is worth the money. After reading lots of reviews, the final conclusion is that it's fairly fast & accurate at focusing & it's very sharp at just about every range & aperture, even though it's a "slow" lens. Not to mention the weather sealing. One will just have to bump the ISO a bit at times in low light. This is the lens that Pentax should seriously consider bundling into their APS-C flagship. If I could only have 1 between the Sigma & Pentax, I'd take the Pentax. Ideally, I'd prefer having both.

However, I haven't bought the Pentax 16-85mm lens yet 'cause I'm waiting to see what Pentax does with their upcoming APS-C flagship. That will determine whether I stay with Pentax or move on.
12-28-2016, 10:34 AM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,176
I ended up buying the Sigma 17-70 with no regrets. You might check it out.
12-28-2016, 10:41 AM   #4
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
Hi Marcus... I've had the DA16-85 WR, and now own the Sigma 17-50. Unfortunately, I had problems with two brand new copies of the DA16-85, but that aside, optically, it's very good, nicely sharp across a versatile focal length range. Whether the variable aperture will suit you depends on whether you'll do much lower-light or indoor "available light" shooting, and/or require the shallower depth of field control offered by a fast lens. Of course, you can still shoot in lower light with the 16-85, but that means bumping up the ISO - so you need to think about your tolerance for image noise as the ISO gets to 1600, 3200, 6400 etc.

The Sigma is sharp even at f/2.8, so it's a really good lens for all kinds of available light shooting, and it has become invaluable to me in that respect. From what I've heard, the Tamron is just as good (some say a little worse, others say a little better - YMMV).

There is one other option, of course - the DA*16-50. From the reviews I've read, it doesn't quite match the Sigma optically (though it's not far off), but it's WR rated. The downside is that numerous owners have suffered SDM problems with this lens after some time, but there is a way to convert it to screw-drive if that should happen.

12-28-2016, 11:07 AM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 440
The DA* 16-50... seems an enigma. Some people don't like it... but then trawling the web, you see some exceptional images taken with it. It looks like it might be hard to master, but worth it.

The 18-135 also looks deceptive. It actually seems to have an insanely high centre quality, as well as its obvious handling characteristics.

Last edited by Conqueror; 12-28-2016 at 11:11 AM. Reason: typo
12-28-2016, 11:18 AM   #6
Senior Member
Joe Dusel's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Vista, CA
Posts: 126
I have the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8. It is the lens I use the most for my K-3. Seems sharp enough to me, has a decent range for most indoor shots and is fairly fast at 2.8.
12-28-2016, 11:50 AM   #7
Imp
Pentaxian
Imp's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Washington, DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,749
I picked up a Tamron 17-50 2.8 for $250 off the marketplace. It is a really nice upgrade from the kit lens, but I you are concerned about autofocus, I would not get it. However, it handles flare better than the Sigma, which was the deciding factor for me.

I'd love to have the Pentax over either of these lenses, but its slow...
It all depends on what type of shooting you do.

12-28-2016, 12:37 PM   #8
Veteran Member
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,642
I have the Tamron lens, and like it a lot, especially for the money. However, I'll admit that most of the time I'm happy with the 18-135, which I think you might consider. The 18-135 covers just enough that I rarely used the 55-300 when I had both available. The 17-50 was fine, but it was amazing how much I needed something around 100mm. The image quality is slightly better with the Tamron, but since I picked up a few primes I'm more likely to travel with the 18-135 and one or two good primes.

The Tamron's big drawback is it can be a bit slow to focus, and I feel like it is slower with my K-3 than it was with my K10d. It might just be perception. It tends to hunt a bit because the screwdrive is fast and overshoots the correct focus (I'm not sure that is a thing). It's often what it sounds like it is doing.
12-28-2016, 12:58 PM   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,962
I've owned the Tamron 16-50 and the 16-85.

For me they are both good so it depends on the job.

If you are going to be on harsh environment situations you don't need to discuss it further.

If you plan to shoot in lower light the constant aperture is better. I also like constant aperture. It took me a while to get used to it on the 16-85.

On balance the 16-85 is a much better lens but that said it's weakness is the aperture. It's slow and variable as you zoom in and out.

It's not the end all of lenses but I like the 16-85 better. That said when I get a k1 I will get rid of it in favor of the 24-70.
12-28-2016, 01:00 PM   #10
Des
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Des's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Victoria Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,409
QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
since I picked up a few primes I'm more likely to travel with the 18-135 and one or two good primes.
^ Good advice. A versatile zoom like the 16-85 or 18-135, plus a compact prime (e.g. DA 21, DA 35, DA 40, FA 43, DA 50) for those occasions when you need something faster.
12-28-2016, 01:53 PM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,167
A lens rarely recommended due to past SDM issues is the DA 17-70 but I can tell you that optically this is a really nice option. The constant f/4 is really nice to have at the long end and the overall optical quality isn't far from my DA 15, DA 40, DA 70 prime set. If you can find one at a bargain and are willing to risk that AF could fail and leave you with only manual focus at some point - it is a strong contender for standard zoom.

If you need something with a better reputation for reliability the DA 16-85 seems pretty rational. The possibility of motor failure exists in the 16-85 but reports of problems like that are few. If the motor were to fail the same manual focus options would be available.

As for the 18-135, that's my go to when I need a wide range and light weight. I carry it and sometimes the DA 15 to get extra wide or the DA 40 or DA 70 for extra shallow depth of field.
12-28-2016, 02:19 PM - 2 Likes   #12
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Scorpio71GR's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,977
I originally started with a 18-55 kit lens on my K10D. I upgraded to a Sigma 18-50 2.8, which was definitely better. Eventually I ended with a DA*16-50. Like others have said the 16-50 really is a love it or hate lens. I really needed the weather sealing so I did not have much of choice. My 16-50 is my most used lens, it rarely leaves a camera body. I also have the 18-135 and it is my walk around lens of choice. The 18-135 has its quirks like all zoom lenses do. My copy is not the best below 24mm but it is really decent on the long end as long as you stop it down. The DC motor on the 18-135 is a joy to use. Quick and responsive autofocus is really nice to have.

I have used both the Sigma and Tamron 17-50's. They both are great lenses are deliver nice images. Either one will definitely be a step up from the kit lens. Remember theses are large lenses, the Sigma has a 77mm front element and the Tamon has a 67mm one. The Tamron will allow you to use your pop-up flash but the Pentax and Sigma will block it. The Sigma has a slightly better build then the Tamron. The Sigma also uses an in lens motor with silent autofocus where the Tamron is screwdrive. I will say there actually is a big difference between 16 and 17mm especially when shooting indoors. This is most likely one reason why my 16-50 goes with me more than my 18-135. For this reason I picked up a HD 16-85 in the Marketplace. I have eyed this lens for awhile. I tend to usually stick to the wide end so 16mm is appealing. Most likely this will replace my 18-135. I had thought a lot about the Sigma 17-70 but in the end the Pentax lens one. When hiking and camping the weather sealing is just too nice not to have. Plus 16vs18mm and 85mmvs70mm sealed the deal.

In the end any of these lenses will better than the kit lens. For shooting indoors f2.8 is just really nice to have. It makes focusing alot easier. My 16-50 is my goto indoor lens along with my 50-135. If you are primarily shooting outdoors then it does not matter as much. Since you have the 55-300 the 18-135 or 16-85 would make a nice choice. You have some overlap and this will reduce the amount of lens changes you will need to do. Both are weather sealed and use fast and reliable DC motors. Also with Pentax lenses you can take full advantage of in camera corrections if you shoot jpeg.

For a fast prime you just can not beat the DA 50 1.8 or the DA 35 2.4.
12-28-2016, 03:58 PM   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,037
All the lenses mentioned so far are good options. I think there are a couple of questions that you need to ask yourself to figure out which way to go, namely:

- Do you need weather resistance? If this is going to be your primary walk-around lens how often are you shooting in rainy or dusty conditions?
- If you need it then your options are 16-85, 16-50 and 18-135

- Most of these lenses are bigger, bulkier and heavier than your 18-55. As a walk-around how much more bulk and weight are you willing to tolerate?
- I didn't look it up but I think the the Tamron 17-50 and the 18-135 are the least bulky.
12-28-2016, 04:00 PM   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 595
I have tried all three of the lenses you listed and I ended up keeping the 16-85. Sure, its slower than I would like at times, but the sharpness and versatility are a big selling point for me. The quiet focusing is also a plus.
12-28-2016, 04:43 PM   #15
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 108
you will probably do well with all three I have the tamron and that lens is great for AF but MF not so good.
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!
17-50mm, edges, hd, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax, pentax 16-85 vs, pentax lens, sigma, sigma 17-50 vs, sigma 17-50mm, slr lens, tamron, vs sigma, vs tamron, wide-angle
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax DA 16-45 vs Sigma 17-50 vs Pentax DA 18-135 jwcjrccc Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 07-11-2015 05:13 AM
sigma 17-70 vs Tamron 17-50 vs Pentax 17-70 dr_romix Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 07-01-2012 10:15 PM
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
Thoughts on 16-45 vs 17-70 vs Tamron 17-50 fiish Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 07-30-2009 11:03 PM
photozone.de lens comprasion, tokina 16-50 vs tamron 17-50 hll Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 05-21-2008 02:42 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:22 AM. | 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