Da 16-45mm f/4.0 ED AL vs Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro vs Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR

nostatic · 01-25-2009, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by seventhdr

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...

Blue · 01-25-2009, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

. . .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.

ftpaddict · 01-25-2009, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by seventhdr

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.

edl · 01-25-2009, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Blue

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.

Peter Zack · 01-25-2009, 06:51 PM

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.

Blue · 01-25-2009, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

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.

12divizija · 01-26-2009, 11:45 PM

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.

Class A · 01-31-2009, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by 12divizija

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.

Peter Zack · 01-31-2009, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by Class A

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.

roentarre · 01-31-2009, 04:49 AM

I would definitely vouch for tamron here. A lens well worth the price.

**EsBee** · 01-31-2009, 11:04 AM

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.

Kirivon · 12-08-2009, 05:12 PM

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.

Class A · 12-08-2009, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Kirivon

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.

rustynail925 · 12-08-2009, 07:40 PM

First one looks sharper. Where did you focus?

Kirivon · 12-08-2009, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Class A

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.

View Poll Results: Wich one would you choose?
Pentax Da 16-45mm f/4.0 ED AL	93	35.23%
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro	55	20.83%
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II	116	43.94%
Voters: 264. You may not vote on this poll

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

01-25-2009, 12:56 PM	#16
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by seventhdr 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
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Peter Zack . . .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
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	Originally posted by seventhdr 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	Originally posted by Blue 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
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	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
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Peter Zack 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
12divizija 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
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by 12divizija 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
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Originally posted by Class A 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
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	I would definitely vouch for tamron here. A lens well worth the price.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-31-2009, 11:04 AM	#26
EsBee Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: National Capital Region Posts: 739	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
Kirivon 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
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by Kirivon 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
rustynail925 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,551	First one looks sharper. Where did you focus?

12-08-2009, 07:57 PM	#30
Kirivon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 173	Originally posted by Class A 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.