Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

View Poll Results: Pentax, Sigma or Tamron ?
DA* 16-50/2.8 4 57.14%
Sigma 17-50/2.8 1 14.29%
Tamron 17-50/2.8 (VC) 3 42.86%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 11, 2010, 1:48 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Frogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 2,774
Default DA* 16-50 or Sigma 17-50 or Tamron 17-50

OK I have made a decision on my next two lenses, the 60-250 (for a very specific purpose next year) and something missing from my range ...... one of these three before Xmas !

I have seen the 16-50 thread here and absolutely loved it ..... however I'm becoming very worried about the SDM issue. Pros though are great build quality and WR.

Then I go over to the reviews here and to Photozone, SLRgear and DPR and check all the ratings / reports / comments and the numerous threads and see that both the Tamron and Sigma seem to be technically higher rated (especially on DXOmark, Pentax tested on a K20d, Tamron & Sigma tested on a 50D as the nearest equivilant). Which confuses me considering how people rave about the 16-50 (and with good reason it seems from the 16-50 thread) especially with CA and distortion better in the 3rd party brands.

Then there is the price issue, over here (Shanghai) it's US$900 for the Pentax, US$330 (non VC) and US$400-450 (VC) for the Tamron and US$500 for the Sigma. That's quite a range for three supposedly very similar lenses.

It must be a constant 2.8 so I've decided the reduced range (so no 17-70 suggestions please ) will give me higher quality, so which one should I go for ? Is the Pentax really worth the extra money or is it just brand premium ?

Note : I should mention I have the Sigma 10-20 and the 43 Ltd so this is to fill the gap.
__________________
http://frogfish.smugmug.com
Pentax : 15 Ltd, 77 Ltd, 43/1.9 Ltd, Cosina 55/1.2, DA*300/4, Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8, Raynox 150/250, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.

Nikon : D800, D600, Sigma 500/4.5, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 35/2.0, Nikkor 85/1.8G, Sigma 50/1.4. Nikon x1.4 TC, Sigma x2.0 TC
Frogfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 11, 2010, 6:22 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
John.Pattullo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 613
Default

tcav was saying in another thread that that sigma 17-50mm os isn't as good the older non stablised version

so would stick with the tamron 17-50mm and the da* 16-50mm

if its just a case of value for money then i'd say tamron for me i wanted the weather sealing and have ordered the 16-50mm due to the snow that arrived and ground teh countrys roads to a halt its not arrived yet =( but things cleared up now so should arrive soon i think

the sdm issue did worry me at first but frankly all brands of cameras have problems so if in the two years of warranty it does break well then i'll send it back to be repaired and if it doesn't break in 2 years its probably pretty solid - i also thin that the newer lenses have been quietly replaced with a better motor - as for the optical properties i've seen lots of fantastic shots with the lens and the etc 2mm on the wide end is also appealing
__________________
Flickr
PENTAX K-5 & PENTAX K-7
Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4 | Pentax-DA* 16-50mm f2.8 | Pentax-A 50mm f1.4 | Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro | Pentax-DA* 60-250mm f4 | Sigma 150-500mm
Pentax Photo Gallery
John.Pattullo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2010, 12:06 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,327
Default

The DA* will likely retain a higher % of its retail value compared to a generic brand lens..at least that was my experience.
Wingman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2010, 12:37 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Frogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 2,774
Default

Thanks John .... money isn't the issue but I don't see the point in putting down hundreds more if a) the lense is going to be unreliable and b) I can get something as good (and that is the point) for half the price.

I have to say I am really confused by the number of technical reports I am seeing that say both the Tamron, & especially the Sigma (exceedingly sharp), are better than the Pentax.

I have put this question out on a number of forums and I'm getting some great feedback - however it seems the SDM problems are not a thing of the past, a number of people are reporting lenses bought recently (within the last year) have problems - and I only get a one year guarantee over here. I was almost ready to pull the trigger on the 16-50 but this issue - and the technical reports - have me spooked.

Thanks Jelpee but I plan to keep the lense I buy for a long time so that is not much of an issue. However, in real terms, even if the Pentax retained 70% of it's value and the others 60% after say 2 years then my pocket would be considerably lighter if I bought the Pentax.
__________________
http://frogfish.smugmug.com
Pentax : 15 Ltd, 77 Ltd, 43/1.9 Ltd, Cosina 55/1.2, DA*300/4, Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8, Raynox 150/250, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.

Nikon : D800, D600, Sigma 500/4.5, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 35/2.0, Nikkor 85/1.8G, Sigma 50/1.4. Nikon x1.4 TC, Sigma x2.0 TC
Frogfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2010, 12:59 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
rhermans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Antwerp - Belgium
Posts: 3,454
Default

This is a question I've been having myself for a while.

The Pentax is IMHO to expensive for the image quality reviewers show
The Sigma has a tiny bit less quality than the Tamron
The Tamron is build like a plastic thingy but has the sharpest results.

At this point for me the Tamron is winning, because it cost's the half of the Sigma and also weighs half.

Ronny
__________________
rhermans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2010, 2:09 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi Kevin,

If you don't mind, I'll just go through my process as if I were considering a lens in this class. . .assuming that IQ is at close to the same level and features take priority --

If I wanted an ultra-wide to short tele fast zoom, I would lean towards the Tamron. The main use I'd give a lens like this would be as a relatively close quarters events lens. I'd want the f2.8 for relatively low light focusing, and I'd probably be using an external flash. It's be pretty much an indoor lens so WR would not be a priority.

The reason I haven't gotten one is that I've found that my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 works as well as I need for this purpose because I rarely, if ever take large group shots, and I'd rather stand off more, so I don't really need the the wider coverage.

I also have a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5, and that would be in the bag if I needed to shoot a group. . . and it doubles as a wide to moderate tele walk around lens if I want something like that.

For me, if WR was a priority, then of course it would be the DA* 16-50 (and it would be a nice partner to my DA* 50-135 Also, If I were anticipating shooting in high stress situations, I'd choose the Pentax, as the focusing and zoom rings + any other on lens controls would be the same (all my Sigmas and Tamrons focus in the opposite direction, and it takes some getting used to), and I could let muscle memory keep me from making stupid mistakes. Otherwise, it would be the Tamron as I feel it's a great value, and I don't assign that high a priority to silent focusing.

If silent focusing is important, then it would be the Sigma, and I'd go with the HSM one without OS, as I don't see a need for a secondary stabilization method in a lens of this FL range.

If the lens is going to be used a lot in very low light situations, then it would be either the DA* 16-50 or the Sigma HSM (if the HSM lens has full time MF override -- like Pentax's Quick Shift). The ability to easily manually prefocus can be very useful in lighting that's so dim that it challenges the AF system -- we're talking Ev 2-3 or under, so really dim. . .

I think those are about all the factors I'd consider. . .

Good luck in your choice -- I don't think there's a dog in the bunch, so I'm sure that you''l be happy with one of these.

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2010, 2:36 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Frogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 2,774
Default

Thanks Scott. My thinking is along your lines with some notable differences :
a. I would also want it for landscapes / architecture for times when I don't want to take along the 10-20 or want the perspective the 10-20 gives (pushes the subject away from the camera).
b. There are many instances when shooting indoors where I don't want to (or are not allowed to) use flash.

I think the Sigma is a much newer lense and so not as many people have it / can comment on it but it is a very interesting lense with the best technical results of the three and a better build than the Tamron.

Both the Tamron and Sigma of course have focus rings but the throws are very short (without looking it up again I think it is 40" for the Tamron, 50" for the Sigma and 70" for the Pentax).
__________________
http://frogfish.smugmug.com
Pentax : 15 Ltd, 77 Ltd, 43/1.9 Ltd, Cosina 55/1.2, DA*300/4, Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8, Raynox 150/250, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.

Nikon : D800, D600, Sigma 500/4.5, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 35/2.0, Nikkor 85/1.8G, Sigma 50/1.4. Nikon x1.4 TC, Sigma x2.0 TC
Frogfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2010, 2:42 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 520
Default

I currently own the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. The bulk of my studio work is done with this lens.

I owned a DA* 16-50 about three years ago. Found it to be a very good lens, had no SDM issues. But, found it to be quite bulky. It has a 77mm Barrel. A little much, I felt, for a walk around lens.

I also have the DA 17-70 f/4 which I also find to be quite a good lens. I've had no SDM issues with it. And I find it to produce very good images.

If SDM is a deal breaker for you, then go with the Tamron. I don't think you'll be dissappointed.
__________________
Canon 60D, EF 50 f/1.8 II, , EF-S 18-135 f/3.5 - 5.6, EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6, 430 EX II

www.EdWoodsonPhotography.com
EddyinGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2010, 2:51 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Frogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 2,774
Default

Eddy ... I'm very impressed with your studio work. Is the Tamron the one you use for those shots ?
__________________
http://frogfish.smugmug.com
Pentax : 15 Ltd, 77 Ltd, 43/1.9 Ltd, Cosina 55/1.2, DA*300/4, Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8, Raynox 150/250, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.

Nikon : D800, D600, Sigma 500/4.5, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 - 35/2.0, Nikkor 85/1.8G, Sigma 50/1.4. Nikon x1.4 TC, Sigma x2.0 TC
Frogfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2010, 2:58 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogfish View Post
Eddy ... I'm very impressed with your studio work. Is the Tamron the one you use for those shots ?
Yes, when the 50 or 77 aren't on the camera, the Tammy 17-50 is there. I used the 17-70 quite a bit before I got the Tamron.
__________________
Canon 60D, EF 50 f/1.8 II, , EF-S 18-135 f/3.5 - 5.6, EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6, 430 EX II

www.EdWoodsonPhotography.com
EddyinGA is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:31 AM.