03-14-2011, 12:44 PM
[quote name='Lampo' timestamp='1300102110' post='6739']
Currently I am planning an update for my standard lens for my Pentax K-5. As the Pentax DA* 16-50 is too expensive for me at this point and because the reviews of this lens are not that positive, I am looking at alternatives. Due to my limited budget, I have come up with two alternatives:
1. Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC (old version) €314
Pro's: - 17 mm wide
- Corner resolution is pretty good, even at f2.8
- Very positive reviews here and elsewhere
Con's: - Build quality
- AF noise
- Quality control issues
2. Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC Macro €349
Pro's: - I expect better build quality than the Tamron
- AF is supposedly much more quiet than the Tamron
Con's: - 18 mm wide, but actually -according to some reviews- it is close to 19 mm in real life
- Resolution of the borders at large apertures is dissapointing, need to stop down to f5.6
I just have difficulty to choose between these lenses. My reason to buy this lens is low light photography and portraits and off course IQ. I have to say that I really appreciate good built quality and that I do not mind AF noise, but it is nice if the noise is not too disturbing. Another question I would like to ask is how I can test these lenses in the shops for decentering or other QC issues. I mean they do not have a brick wall inside and most of the shops here in the Netherlands are situated in industry parks where it is very hard to find a brick wall in the first place. I was planning on taking a newspaper with me to test if the focus accuracy is decent.
Thanks for all your help!
[/quote]
I'd definitely go for the Tamron.
Sharpness-wise it's by far the best lens among the two. Even wide-open it performs very well. The Sigma doesn't impress in terms of IQ.
A good compromise, from what you wrote, would be the new Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. However, it's much more pricey.
Have you also considered the old Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5? It's an extremely versatile lens, with longer range and pseudo macro ability (you can focus on stuff touching the front element!).
It's my walk-abound lens of choice and I also own a DA* 16-50. My Sigma copy is better optically.
What most people don't know is that the Sigma is f/2.8 from 17 to 21mm which is nice for interior shots.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Currently I am planning an update for my standard lens for my Pentax K-5. As the Pentax DA* 16-50 is too expensive for me at this point and because the reviews of this lens are not that positive, I am looking at alternatives. Due to my limited budget, I have come up with two alternatives:
1. Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC (old version) €314
Pro's: - 17 mm wide
- Corner resolution is pretty good, even at f2.8
- Very positive reviews here and elsewhere
Con's: - Build quality
- AF noise
- Quality control issues
2. Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC Macro €349
Pro's: - I expect better build quality than the Tamron
- AF is supposedly much more quiet than the Tamron
Con's: - 18 mm wide, but actually -according to some reviews- it is close to 19 mm in real life
- Resolution of the borders at large apertures is dissapointing, need to stop down to f5.6
I just have difficulty to choose between these lenses. My reason to buy this lens is low light photography and portraits and off course IQ. I have to say that I really appreciate good built quality and that I do not mind AF noise, but it is nice if the noise is not too disturbing. Another question I would like to ask is how I can test these lenses in the shops for decentering or other QC issues. I mean they do not have a brick wall inside and most of the shops here in the Netherlands are situated in industry parks where it is very hard to find a brick wall in the first place. I was planning on taking a newspaper with me to test if the focus accuracy is decent.
Thanks for all your help!
[/quote]
I'd definitely go for the Tamron.
Sharpness-wise it's by far the best lens among the two. Even wide-open it performs very well. The Sigma doesn't impress in terms of IQ.
A good compromise, from what you wrote, would be the new Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. However, it's much more pricey.
Have you also considered the old Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5? It's an extremely versatile lens, with longer range and pseudo macro ability (you can focus on stuff touching the front element!).
It's my walk-abound lens of choice and I also own a DA* 16-50. My Sigma copy is better optically.
What most people don't know is that the Sigma is f/2.8 from 17 to 21mm which is nice for interior shots.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.