[RonMexico]

I'm wondering how everyone feels about the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

It's a pretty big lens. I'm a big boy (6'5) and I can handle it, but i'm thinking maybe i'll sell it and buy the DA 21mm.

I already have the FA 50 and the FA 31, and any day now I will receive the DA 50-135...so do I realy need the tamron?

I guess I could keep it and still buy the 21 but I wanted to get some feedback from you guys.

I know the Tamron opens up to 2.8 and I'd be giving up the convenience of carrying one lens when walking around......but on the other hand...sometimes carrying primes forces you to get more creative with your shots.

So.....what would you do? Sell the Tamron? Keep it and still buy the 21? Or forget the 21?

Thanks guys

[Miguel]

Ron, It really depends on what you need all or any of these lenses for and how frequently. The creativity piece I don't buy into: you the photographer bring creativity to the lens and camera.

I have both most of these lenses. The Tamron I use strictly for my professional work shooting corporate events. It's fast, quite sharp, small enough, and shows people being productive well with strobes. Optically, I'm just OK with the lens, I don't like the color renditioning, and I don't like how it handles depth and texture. But for my work it's fine. I use the Tamron in tandem with the DA* 50-135mm, which is a very good lens. Together these two handle my work gigs well.
But for my personal fine art output the Pentax DA Limited lenses simply outclass the Tamron. I like the 21mm ltd for the size, optics and convenience. But you have the 31. Have you considered the DA 15mm? Or the DA 12-24 which I place very close in quality to the DA limited lenses? The DA 12-24mm I also use for work when I have to scout large spaces for planning purposes with production teams. Very useful. And perfect for big skies.

M

[kthung]

I think you pretty much listed most of the pros and cons in your post, the rest comes down to personal preference. As to size, the entire reason I purchased the 17-50 was because I thought my 24-70 was too big (82mm filter!! now thats big). So size is relative. Of course, compared to primes a zoom will be larger and heavier, thats one of the major appeals of primes. I think it will really just depend on the type of shooting you do (ie. whether or not you will have the luxury of affording time to exchange lenses). one of the things unique to the Pentax systems are the pancake primes so they are definitely something I would like to try. So far I have not been completely blown away by the tamron in terms of sharpness and rendering so I don't know what i will do with it

[rowan57]

I love my Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (Canon Mount) and wouldnt swap it for anything. I have a full set of primes in the same focal length and still find i use them all regularly. The 17-50 is a great, sharp, well coloured, light walkabout but i can understand wanting what seems from reputation to be an awesome lens like the 21mm. I think your best bet is to buy the 21mm and keep the 17-50mm, despite the focal length you will find different uses for them im sure.

Cheers
Rowan

[farfisa]

I'm wondering how everyone feels about the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

It's a pretty big lens. I'm a big boy (6'5) and I can handle it, but i'm thinking maybe i'll sell it and buy the DA 21mm.

I already have the FA 50 and the FA 31, and any day now I will receive the DA 50-135...so do I realy need the tamron?

I guess I could keep it and still buy the 21 but I wanted to get some feedback from you guys.

I know the Tamron opens up to 2.8 and I'd be giving up the convenience of carrying one lens when walking around......but on the other hand...sometimes carrying primes forces you to get more creative with your shots.

So.....what would you do? Sell the Tamron? Keep it and still buy the 21? Or forget the 21?

Thanks guys

When I got the 31, I was itching for a wider Pentax prime, and the 21 is all that was out there.

The 21 is a great lens, compact, sharp, and nice colour. But really the focal length wasn't right for me. I'd use it for a few shots, but then I'd want something else. Didn't feel tight enough or wide enough half the time. I would've preferred a 24mm, but AF 24mm's are pretty rare.

When I got the 16-50, I knew I could get rid of the 21. Try walking around with the Tammy at 21mm for a while and see if you get the itch to change it! (I know, cliche advice, but it makes sense).

I still use that focal length on my zooms, but just for a few shots, then I move on, whereas, I can stick the 31 or 43 on and walk around all day.

[SpecialK]

Keep everything unless you are tight on money.

[joele]

I love my Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (Canon Mount) and wouldnt swap it for anything. I have a full set of primes in the same focal length and still find i use them all regularly. The 17-50 is a great, sharp, well coloured, light walkabout

I have had this in Pentax and have in Nikon and agree completely, I have no plans to sell this lens (and I have a habit of selling lenses LOL)...

[Jewelltrail]

rowan57 I love my Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (Canon Mount) and wouldnt swap it for anything.

joele: I have had this in Pentax and have in Nikon and agree completely, I have no plans to sell this lens (and I have a habit of selling lenses LOL)...

I too love my Tamron 17-50 2.8 and could not sell it. I too sell lots of lenses. Unless a better made, better priced, wide-angle-fast zoom is produced, the lens stays in my family. Is it perfect--NO!