[jct us101]

sorry for the intromission, but i've a slight dilemma, and one of the candidates it's the da 16-45.

I'm considering now a bunch of lens, i can found all of them new at around 300€:
Sigma Ex 28-70 f2.8
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Tamron 28-75 f2.8
Pentax Da 16-45 f4

And the last candidate is a used lens a Tokina Af270 28-70 f2.8 (i think i can cut the price down to 200€ for this one).

First, if i think about it the difference between 70mm and 50mm can be achieved with a crop while it's impossible to recover the differences between 16/17mm and 28mm.

Second, with the 16-45/17-50 i would sell my kit-lens.

Third, only the 28-70/75 are FF lens (thinking @ a possible FF body by pentax)

Last, while f2.8 is a must for the 28-70/75, f4 it's enough for the 16-45/17-50 (with this i mean the stop differences isn't decisive, the 1mm differences it' s more appealing to me)

Get the Sigma 17-70mm! It's the best and sharpest lens in the range, and it's probably the cheapest now too. Not to mention that you get an extra 25mm on the telephoto end and only lose 1mm from the DA 16-45mm on the wide angle. But you'll love it, just get it so that you can thank me for telling you to get it later!

[audiobomber]

Get the Sigma 17-70mm! It's the best and sharpest lens in the range,

No it isn't. The tests I've seen show the 16-45 and 17-50 are sharper. Show me otherwise, or else it's just your unfounded opinion.

Not to mention that you get an extra 25mm on the telephoto end and only lose 1mm from the DA 16-45mm on the wide angle.

If it's your widest lens, that mm is important. Also the Sigma has significantly higher distortion at the wide end compared to the 16-45mm and not as nice for colour rendition.

[jct us101]

No it isn't. The tests I've seen show the 16-45 and 17-50 are sharper. Show me otherwise, or else it's just your unfounded opinion.



If it's your widest lens, that mm is important. Also the Sigma has significantly higher distortion at the wide end compared to the 16-45mm and not as nice for colour rendition.

I've posted some of my own photos with the Sigma 17-70mm that show how incredibly sharp it is in the other threads about it, just look at those. It's definitely the sharpest lens that I've ever used, but I haven't used the 16-45mm, although I've never found any photos from it that make it worth getting instead of the 17-70mm. It's 1mm on the wide end, by the way, that's really not that much of a difference. Even 2mm isn't that much, although a lot more noticeable, but really if you're going to want to pay that much more for that extra millimeter, then go right ahead, but you would be missing out on a great lens. Oh, and don't tell me that you only listen to tests on the lenses? You know how incredibly skewed those can be? The contrast and the color are amazing on the Sigma too, I really think you're just making that one up, and I've owned the lens for quite a few photos, so I would know from personal experience with it. I still put my full recommendation in it and stand by it. Oh, and the DA 16-45mm has incredibly high barrel distortion considering the class of lens it is, the Sigma is considerably less noticeable. That is again from my own experience too.

[deadwolfbones]

I'll repeat, I've owned all three and ended up selling the 16-45 and 17-70. The Tammy was by far the best for my purposes. Lower distortion at 17mm, better colors than the Sigma (not quite as Pentax-y as the Pentax, obv), lightweight, constant f2.8, razor sharp wide open.

f2.8, 17mm:



f2.8, 28mm:



f2.8, 50mm:

[jct us101]

Oh, I hadn't even really noticed that the Tamron was in there, and yeah I would definitely recommend that as the number one choice over any lens, just because of how amazing it really is. The Sigma would come in first for me still because of the added range on the telephoto end though, but I agree that the Tamron is such a sharp and beautiful lens to have. I actually owned one of those for a day but sold it instead of keeping it.

[jsherman999]

.

I've owned the DA*16-50, DA 12-24 and currently own the DA 15, and now own the Tokina 12-24 and Tamron 17-50 2.8 in Nikon mount. My DA 16-45 compares well to all of them.

Compared to:

DA* 16-50 2.8: DA 16-50 was sharper at f/4, same by f/5.6, having the 2.8 was nice. 16-45 is smaller/lighter.

DA 15ltd: 15 is sharper wide-open, better flare control, much smaller and better built. The 16-45 has the versatility that comes with a zoom.

Tamron 17-50 2.8: f/2.8 is fully usable and nice to have, about equal sharpness after f/5.6, with the Tamron sharper at f/4. My 16-45 + K20D brings better colors than the D90 + 17-50, but a touch of PP evens things out.

Tokina/Pentax 12-24 f4: The best all-around WA zoom, IMO. Bigger/heavier than the 16-46, and more of a WA specialist.


Here are some shots from the 16-45:

[Tuner571]

As a 16-45mm owner I can assure you that it is a great lens and that it is a wonderful upgrade over the kit lens. For me the biggest difference was in image quality and the extra 2mm on the wide end made landscape photography a lot more fun. If I were you I would definitely pick one of these up as it is a true jewel of a lens.

[ajuett]

There are a lot of fine to great examples from the kit DA (mk1, 2 and L) 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, DA 16-45mm f/4, the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5, etc.

Using prices first in local (not the web stores) Cdn funds as that is what I can relate too. Yes, I know we are get ripped off up here considering the $ is at par. Anyway...

- 18-55 kit comes with the camera so in fact it is "almost" free.
- DA 16-45mm f/4 is $389.00
- Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 is $429.00
- Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is $529.00
- Sigma EX 18-50mm f/2.8 Macro is $529.00
- Pentax DA 17-70mm f/4 is $699.00

Now, going by investment / dollar value; what are you getting by upgrading the kit lens? You 'might' get $30-40 for the kit as part trade-in (if the store allows trades).

Personally, I have owned the 16-45, it's huge, blocks the on-board flash at 16 to about 22mm, it's no sharper than my kit and not much faster aperture-wise. I don't think its a wise invest, $389 for gaining a slight wide-end advantage and nothing else.

The Sigma 17-70mm is almost there; f/4.5 on the long end is not all that impressive for portraits, 50-70mm is generally where this takes place on this style of zoom.

Pentax's own 17-70mm f/4, just look at the cost and the SDM reliability makes me worried. The Sigma 17-70 is faster and almost $300 cheaper.

That leaves us with the fast 17,18-50 standard zooms. I have owned the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 on a D80 and it is nothing short of spectacular. I have also owned the Sigma EX 18-50mm f/2.8 Macro on a K200D and it is pretty much on par with the Tamron optically.

Of all those imho hands down to the Sigma or Tamron. The price warrants the upgrade as you get better optics and a constant f/2.8. It's ultimately up to you I'm just suggesting more options. Good luck!

[Pentaxor]

these are the kind of images that my 18-55 is unable to match even on a good sunny day. the sharpness and contrast detail are really good.

[audiobomber]

Oh, and the DA 16-45mm has incredibly high barrel distortion considering the class of lens it is, the Sigma is considerably less noticeable. That is again from my own experience too.

Which shows exactly how much your opinion is worth. The 16-45 has lower significantly distortion than the 16-50 at the wide end. It has lower distortion at 16mm than the Pentax 17-70 and Sigma 17-70 have at 17mm. This is an objective, measurable fact, not an opinion. I'm done here. You're just spouting nonsense.

[jct us101]

Which shows exactly how much your opinion is worth. The 16-45 has lower significantly distortion than the 16-50 at the wide end. It has lower distortion at 16mm than the Pentax 17-70 and Sigma 17-70 have at 17mm. This is an objective, measurable fact, not an opinion. I'm done here. You're just spouting nonsense.

EDIT: I just looked at a few review sites, and I must apologize, I was totally wrong about that, I mixed up the two lenses originally.

Back to the original thread (sorry for derailing that by the way) if you can afford the Tamron 17-50mm and only want 50mm as your telephoto end, then by all means I would get that lens instead of any other ones, it's just so incredibly sharp. But if not, then the Sigma 17-70mm is probably the best way to go.

[Shub]

After much consideration, I have decided to choose the Sigma 17-70!
THANKS ALL FOR THE OPINIONS!