Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-20-2017, 07:06 PM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 59
Which 17-50 2.8?

Which 17-50 2.8 should I buy? The Tamron for $299 or the Sigma for $399.

02-20-2017, 07:10 PM   #2
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 51,558
This should help:

DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:
02-20-2017, 07:26 PM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 59
Original Poster
I've read that but now that the prices are closer together and greatly reduced the decision becomes more difficult.
In the long run a hundred bucks isn't that much. Is it worth the difference?
02-20-2017, 07:34 PM   #4
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Scorpio71GR's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,921
Personally I would ask myself is silent autofocus worth the extra $1000. If not then go with the Tamron. They both fine lenses. The Tamron is smaller, more compact and uses cheaper 67mm filters.

02-20-2017, 07:43 PM   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ramseybuckeye's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hampstead, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 17,256
Follow this advise, it's an excellent article, it helped me decide on the Sigma and I couldn't be happier. Note that the Sigma no longer has OS built in for Pentax. I chose it since it had the best rating and I also wanted the silent autofocus. I'm sure the Tamron would have met my needs too. I would have loved for one of those to be weather sealed, but I could'nt afford to pay that price for the Pentax.
02-20-2017, 07:47 PM   #6
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
I own both.

They're slightly different in their strengths ... the Sigma's a bit sharper but bigger/heavier.

You can't lose either way, honestly.
02-20-2017, 08:39 PM   #7
New Member




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 9
I pulled the trigger on the Sigma in December and am really happy with the lens. I decided I wanted the silent AF and also hopefully faster AF. I am happy to report this lens breathed new life into my K5 as my keeper rate for sports photography improved significantly (near 100% for latest skiing sessions). The build quality is also at a high level, certainly a bargain at less than $400.

02-20-2017, 11:29 PM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
JimD's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Newport, South Wales
Posts: 187
I've never, for a moment, regretted buying my Sigma. I've got a very good da 16-45 but the Sigma is in a totally different league.
02-20-2017, 11:34 PM   #9
Veteran Member
Culture's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vaasa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 818
I am just doing my research on this. As far as all the reviews I have read and the youtube comparisons, the sigma seems to be the better one.

Culture.
02-21-2017, 12:08 AM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 796
I changed from the Tamron to the Pentax 16-50 (used). I had problems with the Tamrons build quality, and I had focusing problems even after the lens calibrated in the service. The Tamron reported 50mm at the 17 end sometimes, I've noticed it with my flash. Altough the IQ was superb.
02-21-2017, 07:02 AM   #11
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by 08amczb Quote
I changed from the Tamron to the Pentax 16-50 (used). I had problems with the Tamrons build quality, and I had focusing problems even after the lens calibrated in the service. The Tamron reported 50mm at the 17 end sometimes, I've noticed it with my flash. Altough the IQ was superb.
I have been happy with the Pentax as well, but the price is in another league. With the current prices on the Sigma, I'm not sure I'd do it again. Also, having used Sony bodies with the Zeiss 16-70 F/4 for a year, I'm not sure that F/2.8 is worth the bulk. YMMV.
02-21-2017, 07:48 AM   #12
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona
Posts: 1,619
I have the Pentax 16-50 and the Sigma 17-50. It's the Sigma that lives on my K-3 (when the 18-135 isn't there). I think the image quality of the Sigma is better.

It looks like the Pentax, though, is going for comparable prices (used, of course) on Ebay.
02-21-2017, 07:56 AM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,448
I've owned both, and the one thing that really sets the Tamron apart is it's flare resistance.

Sigma's are notorious for awful flare, and the 17-50, 17-70, 24-70 and 24-60 (all of which I've owned) flare badly with the sun within about 30 degrees of the front element. It's so bad it's almost always uncorrectable in PP. For landscapes, it makes them unusable.

I have owned the Tamron 17-50 for about 4 years, and love it. I like it so much, the one thing that saddens me the most is it does not cover the FF image circle. I would have loved to use it with my K-1.

I would also recommend the Tamron because I personally believe it's better from f11-f16 compared any of the Sigma's I've owned. Again, for landscapes that extra bit of resistance to diffraction makes all the difference.
02-22-2017, 08:51 PM   #14
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 2,192
QuoteOriginally posted by nomadkng Quote
I've owned both, and the one thing that really sets the Tamron apart is it's flare resistance.

Sigma's are notorious for awful flare, and the 17-50, 17-70, 24-70 and 24-60 (all of which I've owned) flare badly with the sun within about 30 degrees of the front element. It's so bad it's almost always uncorrectable in PP. For landscapes, it makes them unusable.

I have owned the Tamron 17-50 for about 4 years, and love it. I like it so much, the one thing that saddens me the most is it does not cover the FF image circle. I would have loved to use it with my K-1.

I would also recommend the Tamron because I personally believe it's better from f11-f16 compared any of the Sigma's I've owned. Again, for landscapes that extra bit of resistance to diffraction makes all the difference.
Is diffraction a function of lens design, or just physics based on based on focal length, aperture, etc.?
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!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tamron 17-50 2.8 to Sigma 17-50 2.8: Should I make the jump? johnnie518 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 12-29-2012 02:38 PM
DA*16-50, Tamron 17-50 2.8, or Sigma 18-50 2.8 for Weddings efkelly Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 01-25-2010 05:42 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:51 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