Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Wich one would you choose?
Pentax Da 16-45mm f/4.0 ED AL 9335.23%
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro 5520.83%
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II 11643.94%
Voters: 264. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-25-2009, 12:56 PM   #16
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
QuoteOriginally posted by seventhdr Quote
are you really comparring Apples with Apples.

You should have at least had the DA* 16-50 f2.8 in the list. The DA 16-45 f4 is a rather old lens design, which I think has been replaced with the newer DA 17-70 f4 SDM.

Regards

Chris Stone
Might be old, but frankly it performs way beyond it's price. Mine usually sits on the shelf because I prefer primes, but when I need to use it I am always surprised at how good the images are. The only downside is that it is slow for my needs. But the 16-45 is a *really* good lens. I don't care what photozone or any other tests say. The proof is in the shots, not the tests. At least for me...

01-25-2009, 01:08 PM   #17
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Peter Zack Quote
. . .The Pentax SMC coatings render a warmer image with better flare control than the other brands but that's been a long standing advantage of SMC.
Peter, I find this interesting. I've seen the opposite stated about the warming when comparing Sigma other Pentax lenses, specifically the Sigma 105mm EX DG compared to the D FA 100mm macro lenses.
01-25-2009, 01:51 PM   #18
Veteran Member
ftpaddict's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yurp
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,669
QuoteOriginally posted by seventhdr Quote
are you really comparring Apples with Apples.

You should have at least had the DA* 16-50 f2.8 in the list. The DA 16-45 f4 is a rather old lens design, which I think has been replaced with the newer DA 17-70 f4 SDM.

Regards

Chris Stone

You also have to keep in mind what the lenses are selling for.

The DA* 16-50 is quite a bit more expensive than the 16-45 f/4.
01-25-2009, 05:24 PM   #19
edl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 457
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Peter, I find this interesting. I've seen the opposite stated about the warming when comparing Sigma other Pentax lenses, specifically the Sigma 105mm EX DG compared to the D FA 100mm macro lenses.
I would agree with that. Overall I find Tamron lenses to be very warm, then Sigma, and Pentax last.

But I like the colors from Pentax glass the most. Perhaps I'll start looking around for a 16-45.

01-25-2009, 06:51 PM   #20
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
I guess my experience is a little different. I'll have to do a little testing and see if my impression is off base. But I will agree that my Tamron 28-75 is a little warmer looking than similar Pentax glass. But I agree with everyone the colour rendition of Pentax glass is superior.
01-25-2009, 08:02 PM   #21
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Peter Zack Quote
I guess my experience is a little different. I'll have to do a little testing and see if my impression is off base. But I will agree that my Tamron 28-75 is a little warmer looking than similar Pentax glass. But I agree with everyone the colour rendition of Pentax glass is superior.
What about Tokina glass with Pentax SMC coating. Sorry, couldn't resist since the D FA is apparently a Tokina design with Pentax coating.

Edit: I guess technically it is all Hoya glass with Pentax/Tokina designs and coating as far as the D FA is concerned.
01-26-2009, 11:45 PM   #22
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lithuania
Posts: 47
I was searching lens to change me kit 18-55.
Tested Tamron - the image wasn't looking natural, I even can say, that it looks oversharped to me, and i dont like build quality.
Sigma - very nice, have macro, so you can focus in very small distances. Image looks nice.
I haven't tested 17-45, but I tested jis younger brother - 17-70 f4. Nice lens. I very liked SDM.
What a conclusion? I picked up DA* 16-50 ant this is really nice peace of glas. I like it very mach - exelent sharpnes, SDM, perfect build quality and weather sealing.
01-31-2009, 02:10 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,036
QuoteOriginally posted by 12divizija Quote
Tested Tamron - the image wasn't looking natural, I even can say, that it looks oversharped to me...
AFAIC, a lens cannot do that. Your camera settings may but a lens cannot. Perhaps with the exception that a lens can be so sharp as to excite moire effects with critical images and cameras with a weak anti-aliasing filter. But I doubt that this is what happened in your case.

01-31-2009, 04:03 AM   #24
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
AFAIC, a lens cannot do that. Your camera settings may but a lens cannot. Perhaps with the exception that a lens can be so sharp as to excite moire effects with critical images and cameras with a weak anti-aliasing filter. But I doubt that this is what happened in your case.
Exactly true.
01-31-2009, 04:49 AM   #25
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
I would definitely vouch for tamron here. A lens well worth the price.
01-31-2009, 11:04 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: National Capital Region
Posts: 738
After a bit of debate, primarily between the Pentax 16-45mm f4 and Sigma 18-50 f2.8, I just ordered the Pentax after having lost at negotiations on 16-45mm here on the Marketplace.

I will find out in about a week if I made the right decision to move up from the DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL II.
12-08-2009, 05:12 PM   #27
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 173
This was from a while back when I upgraded from the 18-55 to the 16-45. Both at 24mm, f/4, ISO 100, 1/640th, taken 3 minutes apart. I'll let you decide which is which.



12-08-2009, 06:38 PM   #28
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,036
QuoteOriginally posted by Kirivon Quote
Both at 24mm, f/4, ISO 100, 1/640th, taken 3 minutes apart. I'll let you decide which is which.
The first one is a lot better. Are you sure the the focus was the same for the second image?

Seems like the second is from the kit lens wide open. Is it really that bad? Doesn't rhyme with all the praise I heard for it.
12-08-2009, 07:40 PM   #29
Veteran Member
rustynail925's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,552
First one looks sharper. Where did you focus?
12-08-2009, 07:57 PM   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 173
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
The first one is a lot better. Are you sure the the focus was the same for the second image?

Seems like the second is from the kit lens wide open. Is it really that bad? Doesn't rhyme with all the praise I heard for it.
The second one is indeed the kit lens. I took comparison shots at 18mm, 24mm, 35mm and 45mm, and excluding the shots taken at 45mm, all the other focal lengths show the same advantage in favor of the 16-45. This shot was done a year and a half ago, so I don't remember the specifics of where I was focusing on, and the 18-55 is long since gone. However, in the shots where the 16-45 is sharper, it is sharper from the foreground all the way to infinity. Basically, there is no part of the image where the 18-55 appears to be sharper or more in focus.

The one exception to this trend is the shot taken at 45mm. Here, the kit lens is slightly sharper than the 16-45, despite the 16-45 being stopped down. Nevertheless, the kit lens shows more pronounced CAs and weaker corners. Despite being less sharp, the kit lens has similar color and contrast. This combined with the strong performance on the tele end is more than enough to constitute the praise the kit lens receives.

This comparison was done basically for my own use. At the time a lot of people were questioning whether or not the 16-45 was worth the upgrade, and this test was to make sure that I was receiving a return on my investment. I'm sure the kit lens would perform much better stopped down, but I wasn't really looking to do a complete comparison.
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!
da 16-45mm f/4.0, f/2.8, f/2.8 ex dc, k-mount, macro vs tamron, pentax lens, sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, slr lens, tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, vs, vs sigma 18-50mm, vs tamron 17-50mm
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wanted - Acquired: Tamron 17-50mm, Sigma 18-50mm, Pentax 16-45mm, or similar Big I Sold Items 1 06-05-2010 12:12 PM
For Sale - Sold: DA 16-45mm, FA 28-105mm, SMC-A 50mm Macro, Sigma 170-500mm; All EX+ wjwncpro Sold Items 9 09-20-2009 12:17 AM
Part 2: Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX Macro vs Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 - Brick Wall test (CROPS) eva2000 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 12-21-2008 08:43 AM
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX Macro vs Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 - Brick Wall test eva2000 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 12-13-2008 11:47 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:43 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