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.

Any SDM issue is something probably quite overblown anyway. There are issues with everything ever manufacturered at some time or another and apart from an early flurry of problem reporting it's been pretty quiet on that front ever since. The other makes you list have problems of their own.

No, it's not just brand premium that causes the marque lenses to be more expensive. They usually perform better and are definitely better made. They are more compatible with existing and future camera bodies and the tolerances are also more exact.

The build quality of the DA* 16-50/2.8 is very, very good and of the lenses I own it is my workhorse. I find the IQ to be sublime and in the two years since I purchased it, I have had no problems with the SDM. The constant 2.8 works very well for me and on my K5, and I also have all that ISO to play with, so its performance is stella. The Sigma and Tamron, I really can't comment on as I have never used them, but from the other Sigma and Tamron lenses which i have used, the build quality of the Pentax DA* 16-50/2.8 really is second to none.

For me personally the little extra cost has been worth it,the DA* 16-50/2.8 does what is says on the box and does not disappoint.

Unfortunately, Tamron do not have a plan to make 17-50mm F2.8 VC lens for Pentax so far.

I've just had to have the clutch replaced in my Citroen C4 after only 4 years and 54000 Km. All because a lug on the release bearing broke causing the clutch plate to not fully engage and making it slip on occasions.

The DA* 16-60mm lens had issues with early batches. If you buy new you shouldn't have any problems. It's superbly sharp, fast, and quiet and is my most used lens.

Get the Tamron non VC, spend the $600 change on another lens

I have the DA* 16~50 and it has been fine. No problems what so ever.

Gary

i have the 16-50 and am about to send it away for repairs. I purchased the lens over 18 months ago and the lens wont focus anymore in auto. It is a recent model and not a dodgy series early model as the threads state. But I still have problems. Make sure you get a good warranty.

If money was no object of course the Pentax would be the one to go for - It's build quality is second to none.

However in terms of image quality the difference between the Tamron and the Pentax are negligible. I picked up a great used copy of the Tamron from SRS a couple of weeks ago for the sum of £209. For that price overlooking the build quality and the 1mm loss at the wide end is very easy to do. It's a fantastic lens too.

I have the Tamron 17-50mm Non-VC and I find it is on my camera 80% of the time, and has the best IQ of all my lenses (Pentax and non-Pentax).

I want to thank you all for the superb response to my quandary on this site. I posted this on a number of forums and this one has by far the most response so far !

Just to point out that money isn't the issue here 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 just 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. And a number of people above are testifying that the Tamron is a great lense too.

I have put this question out on a number of forums and I'm getting some great feedback - however it does seem that the SDM problems are not a thing of the past, a number of people are reporting lenses bought recently (within the last year) that 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 again for the response and keep 'em coming !

I voted for the DA* 16-50.

I have a DA* 50-135 and if it's as good as that then I wouldn't hesitate in getting a DA*16-50. Actually I would hesitate as the SDM problem with many 16-50s is very real. There's even a long sticky thread here documenting the serial numbers of lenses which have gone kaput. Another database here

I will probably ultimately get a DA* 16-50, even though there is a real risk with it, but i have to say I really love the IQ of my Sigma 17-70 and if the Sigma 17-50 equals or tops that then it's another high contender.

I have an interest in this thread becuase I want to upgrade the 17-70 to something that's 2.8 all the way through.

Good luck in choosing. Not an easy one

I have the 16-50mm but have just bought a DA 17-70mm f4 for the extra reach. Hoping the K-5 more than makes up for the loss of f2.8.

Well it should given it's 2 to 3 stop better ISO performance.
Mind you I wouldn't hesitate cropping the 50 of a 16-50 to get a 70

I went with the DA* as I have the 50-135 to go with it.