Tamron 17-50 or Sony 16-105 ?

[fahfah777]

I am really struggling with this decision and I don't usually have such problems. I know it is reach vs. speed. I just feel like if I get one, I'll wish I'd gotten the other! I currently have the 18-70 kit (toy) that I'm replacing, Minolta 50 f1.7, Minolta 70-210 f4 Beercan, Tamron 90 f2.8 Macro and waiting for my Tamron 10-24 to arrive.

I shoot a lot of different stuff - people (Tamron 90), landscapes, birds, lots of muscle and classic cars (I'm in Detroit). Any advice?

[David Kilpatrick]

Welcome! You don't say for which camera. If it is for the Alpha 700, then the Tamron will activate the f/2.8 AF sensor centrally, and this may improve focusing accuracy and speed. No doubt the 16-105mm is more versatile, but it's not actually a great lens optically. It just offers a range which no other kit zoom by any maker matches.

David

[bossel]

I recently got the CZ16-80, preferring range over speed!

[InTheSky]

If your cars are mostly in room where there is not of lot of light , the 17-50 win there (to fix them in movement too).

I don't think the difference in depth of field is astronomic, but it can make a difference when it is time to isolate only you car too with its background with the faster 17-50. But the extra 2x range of the 16-105 can be a huge difference in Stadium picture of good light environment.

Regards,

Frank

[bossel]

(I'm in Detroit)

Btw, being in Detroit, do you know Compuware?

[Andy B]

Thought I submitted a reply a few minutes ago. It must have gone to Google China.

I had a Tamron 17-50 on my A700 up until about a year ago, when I sold it after getting a good deal on a new CZ 16-80. I really liked the Tamron, but I like the 16-80 even more because I find that I use the 16-80's longer focal length more than I used the Tamron's faster fixed aperture. (Haven't really noticed any significant difference in autofocus speed or accuracy.) That said, I got some nice photos with the Tamron inside the Detroit Institute of Arts and Greenfield Village, and the focal range is great for use at the Meadowbrook Concours d'Elegance or the Gilmore Car Museum. On the other hand, my 16-80 was just about perfect for shooting the Pictured Rocks up in Munising, while the Tamron 17-50 would have been too short for certain shots.

Sorry, I probably haven't helped your decision. I will be traveling to Italy in the fall and sort of wish I still had the Tamron for use inside cathedrals and museums. (What was your experience, Bossel?) Perhaps the best answer is to buy both lenses!

Andy (originally from Detroit, now living in Kalamazoo)

[catalytic]

Personally, i find range to be overrated. I usually go for speed / IQ over range whenever possible. If you know what you are going to be shooting, you know what focal lengths you'll need ahead of time anyways.

Usually, it's a fairly narrow range of focal lengths that you'll need for any given situation. For example, when i go on vacation, i often use a single WA zoom (18-36 or 22-44 mm equiv) for 80+% of the trip. If i need something longer, it's usually a lot longer. Something twice as long (say 50-100 mm eq) isn't significantly different. Consequently, i also bring an 80-300 mm equivalent zoom as well. It comes out when i am trying to take shots of people / places / things from across the river, on the top/side of a building, etc.

Besides, you have the telephoto range well-covered already with the T 90 and the beercan. Personally, unless i am taking un-posed portraits / candid shots "on the move", i don't even bother with a standard zoom in that range. I would be quite happy with just the 10-24, the beercan, the 50/1.7, and the T90 for the uses you listed.

[KevinBarrett]

I've owned the 17-50 for about 1 1/2 years now and love it's IQ. The f/2.8 aperture is handy for autofocusing, as DK pointed out, but as for speed, well, I shoot stopped down well into any lens's sweet spot anyway. For faster stuff or shallower DOF, I switch to primes. I confess that I wish I'd gotten the 16-80, but the faster aperture of the Tamron has saved my butt at some very dark weddings.

The 16-105 never came into my debate; too slow, too much distortion, and too many weak points to work around--if it's range you want, you might sooner debate between the 16-105 and the 18-250. The selling points between the 17-50 and 16-105 are too drastically different.

[fahfah777]

Thanks for the replies fellas:

David: Alas I'm still using my a100 until Sony quits playing with other things and comes up with an a7XX. SonyAlphaRumors claims they are releasing 6 new Alphas in the next 3 months. We'll see. I just read your caveat about not buying any A-mount lenses this year. Maybe I should wait.

InTheSky: Most of the cars are shot outdoors. In Detroit in the summer we have lots of "cruises" and impromptu car shows where everyone just gets together in parks or parking lots.

bossel: I'm aware that Compuware has a big presence here but I don't have any dealings with them. (Detroit's former mayor, who just went to prison a couple days ago, did though!)

Andy B: "I really liked the Tamron, but I like the 16-80 even more because I find that I use the 16-80's longer focal length more than I used the Tamron's faster fixed aperture" This is EXACTLY what's going through my head.
btw, did you turn the lights off when you left the city? They're waiting for the last person to leave so they can level it and start over. I actually live just south of the city limits.

The reason I'm conflicted is this will be my walk around lens when I don't feel like carrying a bag 'o glass. If I'm going to shoot something specific, I'll bring the proper tool, but a lot of times I'll just hop in the car and drive until I see something that catches my eye. I looked at everbody's 18-2XX or 18-1,000,000 and I think they are too compromised. Life is full of these difficult decisions (he said sarcasticly)

[bossel]

I will be traveling to Italy in the fall and sort of wish I still had the Tamron for use inside cathedrals and museums. (What was your experience, Bossel?)

I had the 16-80 on the camera 90% of the time, the exception being one day where I walked around with the Sigma 10-20. The 70-210/4 stayed in the bag.

The 16-80 performed great and I decided it will be my new walk-around lens. AF (on A700) was flawless even inside churches. Til 20mm it's 3.5 so you loose 2/3rds of a stop, but with Lightroom 3 or DXO6 the high ISO can be used quite well. And I have just checked my use of ISO during the trip:
200: 1024
400: 35
800: 188
1600: 128
3200: 54
6400:1

So I have to choose my lens to be optimal at ISO 200 Of course, if you do more indoor shots then me, then your criteria will be different.

[catalytic]

How about this as a solution: Get the CZ 16-80 instead of the T 17-50 or the 16-105. You get most of the increased range of the 16-105 (the percentage difference between 80 and 50 is quite a bit more than the % diff b/w 105 and 80) and half of the faster speed of the 17-50. At the long end, the 16-80 at 80 is a bit sharper than the 16-105 at 105 mm, so you could crop a bit more with the 16-80 to get you close to what you could have gotten with the 16-105. Basically, you're getting the best of both worlds, if that's what you want...

[Dr. Harout]

Hi fahfah777 and welcome to the forum.
I asked Armen (a friend and forum member here) to lend the 17-50 which I will compare with the 16-105 I own. I'll do that and come up with results.
Please don't get me wrong, as I do believe whatever David says. But sometimes, more opinions might help (or sometimes confuse )
I'll let you know.
Meanwhile I wouldn't bother myself thinking that screw drive lenses would/may not exist in the future. Frankly, that's a trend which was quite obvious some time ago. Suppose that would be a fact after, say, 3 years from now. So, should we not use decent lenses till then? It's the same thing if we say future cars will have new concepts, so would you restrain from driving/buying a car if needed?
After all M42 lenses might be out of production, but we sure find adapters for them, don't we? (and use them albeit with some restrictions)

[Andy B]

I had the 16-80 on the camera 90% of the time, the exception being one day where I walked around with the Sigma 10-20. The 70-210/4 stayed in the bag.

The 16-80 performed great and I decided it will be my new walk-around lens. AF (on A700) was flawless even inside churches.

Thanks for the feedback, Bossel. Your lens usage in Rome parallels what others have indicated on various threads that I have read. It's shooting inside the churches that I have been most uncertain about, and it sounds like the 16-80 performed well for you. As of today, I'm planning to take my A700 with the 16-80, Tamron 11-18, and Sony 55-200 lenses (the latter mostly for use in rural areas and while cruising the Mediterranean).

faffaf777, The Tamron 17-50/2.8 has a lot of virtues but simply did not work for me as a walkaround lens. The focal length was just too short. "Zooming with your feet" is not always possible, and to me, 50mm is too short for street candids, building details, and some types of portraits. Plus I have the 50/1.4 for when I need a fast aperture and am able to zoom with my feet.

My first walkaround lens with the A700 was the Sony 18-250. It remains a great solution when you only want to travel with one lens, or when the shooting situation calls for being able to quickly switch from wide angle to telephoto. A good example of that is whalewatching in Alaska, where one minute the humpbacks are swimming right next to your boat and the next minute they are 200 yards away. You just don't have time to change lenses without missing shots.

One 10-day trip to Minneapolis and Door County was enough to convince me that the CZ 16-80 would be my new walkaround lens except for when I need superzoom capabilities. The extra 2mm at the wide end (vs. the 18-250) actually makes quite a difference. I have not tried the 16-105 and don't want to get into image quality debates comparing the 16-105 with the 16-80. If you have not already read it, you might want to take a look at DK's article on Sony kit lenses:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/07/2 ... -kit-lens/

Yes, Detroit is a mess, but still has many outstanding attractions. My daughter has worked downtown near Cobo Hall for several years. Her parking garage is a great place to park for Red Wings games.

Andy