Tamron 17-50

Anyone have the Tamron 17-50? I am considering it againts the Pentax 16-45 as a possible 'kit' with the K20D and would value opinions.

Cheers
Lee

Don't have the Tamron but have the Sigma 17-70, great lens & useful range, definitely worth considering too

simon

I was wondering the same thing as Sapphie but more as a cheaper alternative to the Pentax 16-50 f2.8 lens rather than the 16-45. Pop Photo's reviews seem to put the Pentax 16-50 and Tamron lens pretty close. How much better are they compared to the 16-45

I know the Pentax 16-50 has the weather sealing but as far as image quality is concerned is it really worth the extra cost as well as concerns about quality control?

Many thanks,

Jonathan

As well as other things, the weight puts me off the 16-50. It's a whacking great 600 grams. That would be acceptable for a telephoto that I wasn't using very much, but for a general pupose lens? It's a lot, isn't it?

www.Photozone.de has interesting reviews of the Pentax 16-45 and the Nikon fit versions of the Tamron 17-50 and Tokina 16-50 (which the Pentax 16-50 is based on). The Nikon resolution results shouldn't be compared directly with the Penatx's, but still you can get an idea of what the Pentax versions might be like.

I'm thinking of getting a Tamron 17-50. I've heard that it causes underexposure, but that wouldn't bother me as I never rely on the meter that much anyway. Also there have been concerns about focusing accuracy. That's more worrying.

As for the 16-45: it's good, but you do pay a high premium for only slight advantages over the 18-55 II.

Also interesting will be the Pentax 17-70 F4.

I have just received my Tamron 17-50 which I bought as it was a keen price from SRS compared to the Pentax 16-50 which has f4 and has the 2.8 throughout the range. I found the kit lens 18-55 to be very good but I was often frustrated to be at the maximum aperture.

I have just applied my standard test of shooting a textured brick wall and the focus seems fine although I did notice that if I shifted the spot focus point to extreme left and right then the lens did seem to shift its focus which is actually encouraging.

It looks sharp enough edge to edge even at 2.8 at 17mm. I suppose I could post some images but I'm not sure what to do as a lot of the end result depends on the software you use. In Silky everything looks good but I would say the image is slightly darker than with the 18-55 kit lens on my K100D.

Am I bothered? Not yet anyway - it's perhaps 1/2 a stop under exposed but it gives very rich colours. I shall play with it this weekend and report back if you like. eally it depends on the images it produces on a regular basis.

What would anyone like to see in terms of image? I could post the PEF file or large JPEG or parts of an image.

It is twice the weight of the kit lens but feels nice and solid. My main concern is that the front element is almost flush with the end of teh lens and the hood is surprisingly short so it doesn't offer much protection.

Mike

Mike, I'd be very interested to see any shots from this lens whenever it's convenient to post any.

If RAW I suggest Silkypix with its default "Natural" sharpness settings; some whole pictures resized to 800x600* and some 100% crops up to 800x600*; no USM when creating the 100% crops.

Your report sounds positive anyway.

* Personally I'd like 1024x768, but 800x600 is what the majority of people on this forum seem to like.

I get mightily confused by images and their presentation here so what I've done is plonk a 3 meg JPEG for you to view or download at

http://www.drmikewebb.com/30mm_f28_2000th.jpg

I think the names show the settings, K100D mind
No USM or anything other than silky defaults and develop as JPEG but I guess Silky applies its defualt USM to the JPEG
and also

http://www.drmikewebb.com/Shot30mm_45_750 (2).jpg

and also

http://www.drmikewebb.com/Ph34mm_8_250.jpg

Now, no sarky comments about the garage door frame being rotten, I know, and no you really don't need to know why I have a diver's bottle by the front door (indeed it's more fun guessing especially as I don't go diving).

Spot metering centre, spot focussing somewhere within the frame. I could be more scientific but to be honest I'd rather take some real photographs!

This one is definitely centre spot focus centre spot meter

http://www.drmikewebb.com/17mm_67_90th.jpg

I don't know if these help?

Mike

It will help lighten my wallet! It's definitely on my shopping list now.

It looks like some USM was applied (which makes it harder to judge) but still I reckon the focusing and resolution of the lens is good.

Distortion of the wall is high, but you must have been standing close to it. I don't think distortion would be a problem for "real world" shots. (Either it wouldn't be noticeable or it could be corrected).

The second link isn't working, by the way.

Thanks very much.

I'll be interested to know if you can beat SRS price which came out very well - I'll also be depressed!

It was something of an impulse buy starting off as the Pentax 16-50 if that's the cheaper one and the seeing I could get 2.8 from a lens that wasn't that much more expensive and came out well enough in reviews.

I hope it will become my walkabout lens. I really wanted something a little wider to get teh Sigma 10-20 off the camera as it's very often too short.

Be aware when you zoom it gets longer which always annoys me as I am sure there's no need for this with a modern design.

The second link needs it all the way to the jpg, I'm not sure whay but it does. Yes Silky put some USM in there but nothing dramatic.

Mike

I had a very brief walk with this lens on Sunday and the focus seems fine including infinity which I have on occasions had issues with on other lenses. I had one time when it hunted badly. The spot focus was set to extreme left to get a yellow hut in focus and I think the red focus spot fell on a piece of yellow board and it just couldn't cope at all until I moved a little to get an edge near/in the spot. But I think any lens would have done that.

Photos are rubbish but the lens did well.

Mike

We know you don't go diving. If you did, you wouldn't leave the bottle by the front door, and you'd have more confidence in the quality of the air inside it.

So why is it there? My guess is that in your spare time you are an entertainer at childrens' parties, and need a good way to blow up balloons.

G

Portable dust reduction system

AS mentioned elsewhere - used to reinflate the tyres on the Land Rover when I have had to let air out to get grip at competitions. You can run them at about 15-18 psi off road but you'd wobble like a jelly on road at that pressure so you need to pump them up again to get home. It's also stunning how you feel the drag if you do a short hop at lower pressures - I can well believe the claims about fuel consumption falling if you run at lower pressure than recommended.

Mike

Nice to find another Land Rover enthusiast on the forum. I don't have one at the moment but I've had a Series 3 Hard top 2.25 Petrol, a Defender 110 CSW TDI 200, and finally a P38 Range Rover 2.5 DSE. I converted the 110 to a camper for some of our best holidays in France.

Cheers,

I am a truly sad person. I drive 300 TDI disco daily and have a 200 TDI 90 for competition and mucking about. I have had a series 3 petrol which was lovely and a Range Rover V8 which I bob tailed (as seen on a 4x4 is born - the horrible black thing) and it would more or less go anywhere I pointed it.

The current 90 is pretty much standard and is a wonderful vehicle which I am still learning about. They are so capable with almost no modifications. I did mention I am a sad person didn't I? It delights me to beat a vehicle costing ten times mine and in one case a vehicle whose CV joint cost more than my whole Land Rover!

Happy days.

Mike