Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro vs. Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di-II LD or ??

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>I am looking to build my kit a bit further and need the Pentax communities help. I initially wanted the 70mm or 77mm limited lenses, but with the crazy increase in Pentax lens prices, I am looking at alternatives. I have heard good things about the Tamron 90 mm f2.8 and the 17-50 f2.8 lenses. Do you guys recommend one lens over the other?</p>

<p>To make this more relevant, I usually shoot portraits of models, but am moving away from it. I also shoot street photography. My main complaint in shooting is that at my widest best lens so far is 28mm on 35mm body which does not give me enough room to get the entire shot without cropping hands or feet, etc. (Yes, I focus with my feet but sometimes you just don't have the room). Now before you all start with the "of course you need the 17mm-50mm", my other complaint is that I want the critical sharpness that only a 135mm APS crop factor would bring. I want to be able to step back and grab a shot that only includes the face or even just the eye and lashes or only lips. So I really have a quandary. </p>

<p>I have a 100mm Macro lens which I want to love, but its manual focus and thus largely unworkable in a fast moving situation. I have an F 50mm f1.7 lens. And I have the kit lens for anything nearing 18mm. I also have the 40mm f2.8 limited that I love, but again, it has range problems. You can see samples of my work here: http://www.jemalyarbrough.com/ . </p>

<p>For the record, I am selling off a lot of my lenses and just trying to build a tight kit of maybe 5 essential lenses. So if I am off the mark with either or both of these lenses as potential candidates, please educate me an point me in the right direction. I am not opposed to continuing to save and wait and spring for a $1k lens, but frankly, I'd rather not.</p>

 

[ricardovaste]

<p>You want to do street but you want critical sharpness? I don't think that will work, sorry :-)</p>

<p>A small prime like a 28mm works well for street. Unobtrusive, easy to compose with. Gives quite a natural feel. Maybe give your kit lens (18-55?) a bit more of a run. You rarely need fast aperture for street, and you can generally work around that if you do (I mean, noisy B&W's look okay to me ;-)</p>

<p>I have a grudge against the 17-50 Tamron, simply because of the build quality and mine keeps letting me down here and there, but in reality it's still good value for money. If you're still shooting portraits I would get a lens specifically for that, neither the Tamron 90 or 17-50 are really ideal (atleast that's what I've found). I would just give the kit a try for a month or so.</p>

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>I have an older Vivitar 28mm f2.0 that I use to shoot street stuff with at the hyperfocal distance. Its fun and kind of hit and miss in terms of focus. I would love it and never change if it was autofocus, but its not. I also want something to give me a bit more range than I get with the 28mm on the K10D sensor. I've heard that the Tamron 17-50 is just heads and shoulders better than the kit lens and would handle the low light shots better (of course). I have also heard whispers of build quality issues. </p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Hi Jemal,<br>

I agree with Richard, your requirements are a bit contradictory. The 17-50 Tamron is one of my nuts and bolts lenses, but it has focusing issues, and I don't like how it renders skin tones of any races.</p>

<p>I recommend you save for the best possible lenses. For size, the DA Ltd 21mm is small, though I think the larger DA 12-24mm is amazingly useful for street. And the optics for both are very very good.</p>

<p>For models, the DA 70mm is in the upper echelon of Pentax lenses. Skin, light, color from that lens knocks my socks off. And it handles fast. For versatility, the DA* 50-135mm is worth it. Does great with people shooting if the lighting is good. I'd learn to love the 40mm too, most of the shots I've seen are high quality, but if you're just not bonding (it happens), sell it and your 28mm, and buy either the FA 31mm or the FA 43mm. Really, one of those two and the DA 70mm should do you good for a decade or two.</p>

<p>The Tamron 90 is a fine macro, I owned one for a few years, but wouldn't use it on the street or with models--too revealing in ways and slow handling. </p>

<p>ME</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Have a look through your street images you've taken so far. What are the exif details like? I'd be suprised if you'd really need the 2.8 for street. If you're stopping down the lens, the 17-50 Tamron won't be real advantage over the kit lens. I know my kit lens (it's a Sony, but they're all pretty similar) is just as good when i use it at say f/8 for a landscape compared to the Tamron. </p>

<p>If you like your 28/2 but would like autofocus there must be something similar available. For me there is an old Minolta 28/2 in autofocus, though it can be hard to find. I believe there is an old 28/2.8 Sigma? Or the larger 28/1.8?</p>

<p>When you start wanting to get a faster, stronger kit lens... things can get pretty expensive for very little gain in the end. I don't know what users think of it, but i see there is a 17-70/4 Pentax? I imagine it would be a nicer lens than the Tamron. There is that Sigma 17-70/2.8-f/4... but it is meant to be hit and miss sample wise...</p>

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>Michael,<br>

I know that I'm asking about two different lenses. I just wanted to give examples of what I shoot. The real issue for me is that I only can get one now, when I need two different lenses to handle each situation. So I guess I wanted to know which lens would best do what I need for its category / shooting area.<br>

I really really really want the FA 77mm, but I just don't have $1k to invest when I may never use the lens (although I have a PZ-1 and PZ-1p one of which has to get sold cause I don't need two of basically the same camera. That is a question for another day however) on a full frame camera. So at least from the long end, I think you answered my question which is to just wait and save a bit more and grab the DA 70mm limited. The Tamron was attractive because I could also use it for Macro work. I've gotten used to cleaning up people's skin in photoshop. LOL. You just can't show everything on a person's face and think they will love the photo.</p>

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>Richard,<br>

Thanks so much for your input. The f/2.8 is more for indoor stuff involving a model or the occasional at dusk street shooting or beach sunset shot. The problem is that absent a tripod the Kit stuff just doesn't appear all that sharp to me. I know I pixel peep.</p>

[rogerdaltx]

<p>The 90mm Tamron macro has been on my wish list for some time and I'll eventually add one. I go back a forth between it and the slightly longer reach of the Sigma 105. But having used both on a Nikon system over a week long seminar last year I like the Tamron a bit more and it would be useful for headshots too, though arguable too sharp for portrait work.</p>

<p>I owned the Tamron 17-50 when I shot Canon a few years ago and really enjoyed that lens. Like most of Tamron's offerings it's more compact and light weight than the competition while still being very sharp, but at the cost of some build quality compared to "pro lenses". It's a very nice general lens and a good value.</p>

<p>But I'd agree with Richard neither of these are what I'd consider idea for portrait use. For that and when I don't have room/time for a prime (FA77) I reach for my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. It's the most flexible portrait lens I've used on APSC covering film equivalent of 43mm for about three people to 115mm for head shots all very sharp in a single fast and compact lens. For most anyone over their mid twenty's I usually need to soften images from it. For flexible portrait work this is my goto lens.</p>

<p>You're going to have to decide what's most important to add/improve in your kit. Improved speed and sharpness over the kit lens, a telephoto with GREAT macro that also works for head shots, or a better all around portrait lens.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Look at finding yourself a more stable position when the light gets low and you're shooting handheld. You can easily get very printable results at shutters as low as 0.5" (with stabalisation). I know a few who set a task of shooting handheld at 1 second exposure time... results were suprising. Last thing I'd say is get a lens that will do one job perfectly, rather than a lens that will do two jobs okay. You're getting along okay as it is now and more money will always come along. Better off getting a lens that you'll really enjoy using for one thing, rather than one that will make minor differences in others.</p>

<p>Take care.</p>

[sleahy73]

<p>Hi Jemal, </p>

<p>It seems you're working in 2 different directions here. I don't think one lens is going to satisfy what you're looking for.<br>

For starters, you seem to be toying with zooms and primes. These are really 2 different styles of shooting. I suppose you could coble together some mishmash of a kit that suits your needs, though. <br>

Personally, I'm blown away by the DA* 16-50. It's 24mm FF equivalent at its widest, quite sharp, contrasty, great color - almost never leaves my camera. You should be able to get a new one for around $750. If you're looking for a nice, wide AF lens for street, something similar to your 28mm, you might try the Sigma 24mm f/1.8. Should cost around $450. <br>

For your model shots, I've heard nothing but great things about the DA* 50-135. I picked up a Sigma 70-200 2.8, though. In my quick test shots in the camera store, I thought the Sigma handled some PF a little better. It should run about $700ish, as well. </p>

<p>Hope that helps.</p>

<p>Sean</p>

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>Richard - Thanks for your input.<br>

Sean - I am not looking to get one lens as a do it all. I really just wanted input on the lenses and which is a better lens. I completely agree and understand that these lenses are wanted for different shooting uses. I prefer primes, but in shooting models, I need a quick zoom because I need to go full body, 3/4 body and 1/2 body/head shot with the same pose sometimes and don't have time to switch lenses. For portraits, I may just shoot with the one lens all day long. I actually have a 50-105 for the Sony and I think a 50-135 for the Pentax. Again, the problem that I have with the 50-135mm is that at the short end its not wide enough to always capture the full body shot when I have a short working distance. The 17-50mm or wider seems like it may make a better all around walking lens to keep on camera while the longer stuff stays in my bag for special use.</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Javier?! Javier?!! Anyone seen Javier?</p>

<p>The Pentax "Man on the Street", our own Javier, has used the Sigma 10-20mm quite a bit for street work, but I don't want to speak on his behalf for any other lenses he uses. He'll probably chime in eventually.</p>

<p>I have the same Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (they now have a constant aperture version for more coin), and between this and the Sigma 18-50mm these two lenses get a lot of my time. They are both great lenses, but they are big, and the 18-50 is pretty heavy, too. No biggie for me, though.</p>

<p>I haven't goofed too much with it, but I'd bought a used Pentax "F" 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5, and it has provided quite good results as well. I paid around $60 for it at a local camera shop.</p>

<p>I also own the Tamron 90mm macro, but really only use it for close-up work. I've goofed in the yard with it and shot on stuff from 20-60 feet away, and the result is very nice. I can get very sharp subjects and nice bokeh, too. This is in my back yard, shooting across the top of a snowy bush focused on the 2nd fence post from the right. That's about 36 feet of fence line down to the far corner of the fence. Don't recall the exposure settings, but it came out quite sharp at the point I was focusing on (fence post), and still looks good even in this big dumb down for 'net use.<br /> <img src="http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p26/stevet_010/K20D1580edit.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[Tony Evans]

<p>Jemal,<br>

I am anything but a portrait photographer, but for my 2c worth, get the Tam 90 and get rid of the 100.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I like the DA70 a lot for head & shoulders shots. I find 100mm just a little long for this purpose (using D-FA100/2.8 macro), but 90 is a bit better; 135mm equivalent--I think this what you meant by "135mm APS crop factor". I have also liked the long end of standard zooms for this general purpose as well--primarily the FA24-90/3.5-4.5 and DA17-70/4. In fact, based on this, I hunted down a relatively uncommon M120/2.8 for use on film (like 80mm on APS-C).<br>

Most relatively modern standard zooms focus closer than most non-macro primes of similar focal length; the 17-70 is 1:4 and the 24-90 is 1:5, if I recall correctly. For the record, DA70 and F50 are something like 1:7. If you really want to pick up sharp details with lashes & lips, the close focus of a macro lens can help. For whatever reason, it doesn't seem to be as popular but there's also a 70mm sigma macro which might suit your needs. Everything I've heard so far suggests its as good as most other macro lenses though like most macro lenses, it's a bit larger and slower-focusing than most non-macro primes.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Jemal, one other thing--have you considered the bargain DA16-45/4? I find it a noticeable step up from the kit lens. 16-45/4 + DA70/2.4 is a pretty nice kit.</p>

[sleahy73]

<p>Hmm... ok, they're not perfect in terms of zoom range, but I have have heard good things about them - Have you considered one of the Tamron or Sigma 24mm/28mm-70mm/75mm f/2.8? 75mm would be a bit short for head shots, but it should be able to accomplish the rest. Another option would be the Pentax 17-70 f/4 (wider, but slower). There's a similar Sigma with a f/2.8-4.5 as well. <br>

To be honest, I don't think there is a lens for Pentax that's going to quite nail it for you. You're going to have to zoom with your feet to some degree. In fact, the only lens I can think of that might do what you want is the Canon 24-105 f/4 on an APS-C sensor. I don't know of anything quite like that for Pentax. </p>

<p>Sean</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Sean, the FA24-90/3.5-4.5 does a pretty good approximation of this--roughly 35-135 equivalent. Personally I think its optically (if not build) competitive with the Canon. I actually think even 70 is OK for headshots--usually you can take a step or two closer with this kind of shot anyway. I do find that 45-60 is a bit short for this however--this is part of the reason why I've had a hard time embracing otherwise pretty good zooms like DA16-45, DA*16-50 (haven't tried it, partially for this reason), Sigma 24-60/2.8, and the kit zoom as well.</p>

<p>Taking the idea of using designed-for-film lenses for short telephoto, I think there are more than a few people using Tamron 28-75/2.8 for this purpose.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Thanks Steve. :)<br>

I pretty much agree with all the suggestions here. I would also add that for shooting street with an Auto focus lens, you do not want any macro lens. They are simply toooo slow to auto focus. My fastest auto focus lens is the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 This lens snaps to focus and at F/8 rarely if ever misses. Same as with the Tokina 20-35F/2.8. Everything else, I use short primes all set at the hyperfocal distance and these days I am using the Sigma or Vivitar 24mm, but I recently aquired the DA21ltd.</p>

<p>As Steve mentioned I do use my 10-20 sigma allot for street shooting, but it also requires to be working in a foot foot circle max. This is sometime very hard and uncomfortable for many. As far as portrait goes, I really don't know. I want to say DA*50-135, again, I don't really know.</p>

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>While I still haven't decided on a lens, I was able to pick up a Jena zebra 35mm f2.8 for under $50.00 us. So I'm playing with that and back to the DA 40mm f2.8. I do have a 28-105mm slow Tamron which also finds its way on the body from time to time. Prices are so high that I feel like I'm chasing a ghost that I will never be able to catch in terms of an affordable upgrade path. </p>