16-45mm £229 or Tamron 17-50mm??

Tricky one this. The 16-45 is a great performer - and you get an extra 1mm, which makes quite a lot of difference on the wide end (more important, in my usage, than the 5mm extra you get at the long end with the Tamron). However, with the Tamron you get an extra stop, and possibly even better results.

If I were you I might leave it to fate and see what comes up first secondhand. You could then get a tried and tested 16-45 for about what you would have paid last year, or a Tammy for a good price. There seem to be quite a lot of 16-45's around, and I may know someone who's selling a Tammy.

Personally, I'd prefer the Pentax and up the ISO, especially as it's an excellent performer wide open. There is no other wide fast option apart from the DA*16-50.

I upgraded from the kit lens to the 16-45, the extra 2mm was immediately noticable, 1mm is not nearly so noticable. I've taken many thousands of shots with it and was never tempted to change to the DA*16-50, even though I had used one many times and even get one for a great price. Don't get me wrong, the DA*16-50 is a terrific lens at a (now ridiculously?) much higher price/size/weight and unfortunately isn't that much better than the 16-45 at the wide end, although it really begins to shine once you go past 21mm.

I tried the Tamron and was underwhelmed, okay it's sharp, but it does suffer from high field curvature and I find the colours and rendering not to my liking, plus I do like Quick Shift and prefer Pentax colours and rendering.

I eventually changed to a DA 17-70 and I do miss the extra 1mm width quite often, but find the range to 70mm more useful. I regret selling my 16-45, but what's done is done!

I now have to find a wide angle with decent performance (at a very modest cost) and am finding that a very difficult task, I had two Sigma 10-20 and wasn't happy with either! My trouble is that I'm looking for the holy grail

As Richard says the Pentax 16-45 is excellent wide open. Here is a link to some test shots I made with the one I purchased from a forum member.

Note the fastest shutter speed was 1/8 and all were hand held.
LINK
John

My feelings too - while it's small, I wouldn't dismiss the extra 1mm as a factor in deciding on a lens.

From what Richard says about the Tamron (which I've never used), I'd probably plump for the 16-45. Though I do know people who swear by the 17-50, and I've seen some excellent images taken with this lens.

The Tamron 17-50 is excellent and arguably the sharpest zoom lens in its class and range. I replaced my 16-45 for one mainly to get the extra stop. It means I rarely bother with prime lenses (up to 50mm) any more as f2.8 is pretty fast.

I'd say get the Tamron if you want f2.8, or the 16-45 if you want to save a little bit of money and weight. Other differences between the lenses are insignificant, especially if you have an ultra wide angle zoom (such as 10-20 or 12-24mm) to overlap with the wide end.

See http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28...

If budget is a factor, you could think about a Sigma 17-70. I got one recently and so far very pleased with results, with the extra range being very usefull. ( before this used the 16-45 ).

Hi Doug
PM sent

I'd go for the 16/45!.......when and what would you shoot @2.8?....a narrow depth of field ,dont think I have ever used my 16/45 any wider that 5.6!.....you get wonderful sharp shots, wonderful colour and contrast with the 16/45 so it gets my vote..........

Doug you have a pm

Dave

And those have reliability issues which would make Sigma green with envy