Opinions on the Tamron 17-50 f2.8

[wpoupore]

<p>Wondering how it compares to what I have, the DA 16-45, and what I don't have, the DA* 16-50.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Bill,</p>

<p>Providing an experience-based response can be challenging because few folks have a need to have all three lenses. Oh, folks can quote the usual suspects that do geek-based lens testing, but I find few of those testers actually have many clues and even less experience about the practice and art of photography.</p>

<p>The DA 16-45 is highly regarded; the online jpegs I've seen looked quite good. The primary advantage of the other two lenses is that they are f 2.8--faster. I own the Tamron and use it for corporate event shooting. It's not a great lens but it meets my requirements for speed. it required significant AF adjustment in my K20D and now focuses well. This is a common problem with this lens on other platforms. The lens is very sharp, but other rendering attributes such as color, texture, shadow definition are not as good as with my Pentax primes or the DA* 50-135mm zoom. So I don't use it for art, but for shooting pictures of people being productive it works fine.</p>

<p>The Pentax DA* 16-50mm I considered but manufacturing QA issues (which may or may not still be present) were significant and widespread enough to scare me away--regardless of the image quality--this is my work and I cannot afford inferior manufacturing engineering and the subsequent repair downtime.</p>

<p>So, if you need faster than f4 zoom, these are among your options; otherwise enjoy what you got.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>I bought the Tamron last year and returned it. Maybe I just got a bad copy but the resoluition just wasn't good enough. I opted for a Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 and am very happy with it. It's discontinued now, I think, but a very good lens for the money (~$250 new, as I recall.)</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>As a sometimes geek without a clue :) I've wondered this myself. (I just had to Michael).</p>

<p>I've owned and used the DA16-45mm and now have my second DA*16-50mm. The DA* renders very well but QC is an issue. My first version, was one of the famous BF/FF lenses which was returned 2 days after purchase. The second will focus sharply and shows no signs of BF/FF on 3 different bodies but struggles to find focus on both the K10D and K20D using SDM. Oddly enough it will focus better on the *istD in low light (screw drive only).</p>

<p>Like Micheal's comments, most Tamron owners report a fast and sharp lens that does not render as nice an image as the 2 Pentax lenses. I also tried the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 macro and although fast and rendered an image that looked close to the DA16-45mm (colour and texture), the DA was sharper in the center and corners. Overall I wasn't impressed with the Sigma (I owned 2 of them over the last 3 years both the same) and sold it.</p>

<p>Overall I'd say if the 1 stop difference between the DA/DA* or Tamron are not a big issue for you, stick with the DA16-45mm. It's as sharp as the DA*, focuses better, renders the corners well with little or no vignetting, shadow detail, texture or "look" is nicer, better contrast and the colour tone are all top notch.</p>

<p>My last job was doing corporate head shots in a studio set up and even with 2 decent modeling lights on my strobes, the DA* had difficulty locking focus on an eye. I finally gave up fighting with the lens and switched to The FA50mm which is always reliable. For this type of job selling the DA16-45mm was a mistake as it worked fine for me the past 2 years.</p>

<p>Although I shoot 15+ weddings a year as well as other commercial work, I'll be getting another DA16-45mm this year and sending the DA* back to Pentax to see if they can do something with the focus speed/lock. F2.8 isn't much good when the lens hunts like a blind man for 30 seconds. The wide zoom f2.8 lens choices are disappointing to say the least. Someone once told me that the DA*16-50mm and the DA*50-135mm are so different (mostly QC issues but IQ as well) that you'd swear they were built by two unrelated companies.</p>

<p>Am I a clueless geek? Don't think so. Just spent too much money hunting for the right wide zoom and to this point the DA16-45mm is the best lens of the bunch (regardless of cost). If it was faster, it would win hands down but at f4 (for my needs) it's a tad slow but the quality of the lens in both QC and the image it renders, makes it a winner.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>My 16-45 needs a huge amount of focus adjustment (+120um on my old K10D, +10 on my K20D) and even so, I'm never quite sure if it's locked focus...</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Peter Z,<br>

That was an excellent reality-based review which I enjoyed reading. Please understand that I would never consider you a lens "tester" let alone the other two descriptors. I'm referring to the oft-referred to websites ("the usual suspects") that seem to be perceived as holy. I've never found much of a positive correlation between their methods and findings, and what I consider photographic practice.</p>

<p>It is too bad that the DA* didn't serve you well, or the Sigma, or the Tamron. It is a shame that one cannot find a top-notch f2.8 zoom in that focal length, especially since there are relatively so many choices for a Pentax shooter. Apertures larger than f4 are usually not an intense requirement for me, but this focal range is the one exception. So the Tamron makes do for now, and I sneak in the DA Ltd. 35mm when I can.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Michael, I was having some fun with you. Sorry the sarcasim didn't show through. ;-)</p>

<p>I have a great deal of respect for both your opinion and experience. I get what you were saying about the tester web sites. Frankly they are the begining of the road map when looking at equipment but you really have to "live with a lens" for awhile (at least in my experience) to get used to it's strengths and weaknesses. Certain issues show up quickly, others take some real world shooting (under pressure) to see if they are winners.</p>

<p>I'm going to back track a little on some comments I made about the DA*16-50mm earlier. A long time ago, Javier posted that he felt the cameras focused better when both the grip and body batteries were on together, instead of grip first and body second or vice versa. So I shot a wedding yesterday and decided to do this with the K10D. I also put 2 Pentax original batteries in the body/grip (not the Imact ones I often use). Well lo-and-behold the lens was fine and the light at the reception was crap.</p>

<p>So I'm drawing a different conclusion subject to further testing. It's the amperage of the battery. The in body motor is stronger and can drive a lens better even with batteries that are not completely to Pentax specs. The SDM motor is weaker and demands more of the battery keeping the amperage at or better than spec. </p>

<p>Now I'm wondering how many of the recent SDM complaints are really batteries that do not get to spec. I read another post where someone tried a 3rd party brand battery that was supposed to be 200MaH better than the Pentax but actually gave 20 minutes less operating time.</p>

<p>These 3rd party batteries aren't great and my practice of a Pentax battery in the body and an Impact one in the grip has shown a flaw. (grip first usage) The Impact batteries will only be used as emergency backups from now on.</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Peter, your reports here are very interesting!!</p>

<p>I have not heard any negative comments regarding the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, if a fast f/2.8 is needed. Like Dave, I nailed a deal on a new Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8, and I am very, very happy with my results. It is quite compact for a fast zoom too. But if you really don't need that f/2.8 speed for fast action/high shutter speed or reduced DOF, that DA 16-45mm f/4 is a really fine WA/short tele zoom lens!</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Michael K I had the DA16-45mm and the second Sigma 18-50mm macro at the same time. I assumed the first one just wasn't a great copy. But head to head, the DA16-45mm was a better lens, IQ in every respect was superior out of the Pentax. Sometimes I think we assume that a lens is faster and thus is automatically better. Not so in this case from my limited experience. The Sigma is better than the kit lens but falls short of the DA16-45mm.</p>

<p>I'd say that those upgrading from the Kit lens can see the improvement and I would guess that is why we hear such good things about it. It's not a bad lens for sure, focus speed was very good, nice close up ability but just not the best IMHO.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>So if not really needing the f/2.8, why bother- just keep going with the DA 16-45mm f/4!! </p>

<p>The new DA 17-70mm may be a worthwhile alternative, and provide more range, but then there's the possible reliability issue of its SDM, sensitivity to battery power, etc... </p>

[wpoupore]

<p>Thanks for all the answers. Lately I've found I'm mostly using my primes when shooting in this range, so the Tamron, DA* or anything else would have to be alot better than the 16-45 to be worth considering.</p>

<p>Pentax - the only brand where having a Limited selection of lenses is a good thing.</p>