Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80  (Read 1157 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TSOPTC

  • Major Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« on: February 09, 2010, 03:19:09 PM »
In a straight competition, which one would you get?

I cant decide, was pretty much certain on the Tamron, but then found a really good deal on the CZ.
Logged
Feel free to check out my photos on Flickr:
flickr.com/photos/TSOPTC
Sony a200 | Sony 18-70 3.5-5.6 | Tamron 55-200 F4-5.6 | Sony 50 1.8

Offline Mike (Senior)

  • Regular Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Gender: Male
  • NAPP Member
    • View Profile
    • NAPP
Re: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2010, 04:10:55 PM »
I have the 16-80, have been pretty happy with it.
Image quality is usually pretty great, build quality is just OK.

A few things I would consider,
at 50mm the Sony will be at 4.5, the tamron 2.8
at 16mm the Sony will be at 3.5, the tamron 2.8
at 80mm the Sony will be at 4.5, the tamron will still be at 50mm

I also look at Zoom lenses as two lenses, there widest and there longest
So the Tamron would be a 17mm 2.8 and a 50mm 2.8
I would ask myself would I ever use a 17mm at 2.8, maybe but not as much as I would think.
I would ask myself would I use a 50mm at 2.8, yes I would, probably a lot, but that is why I have a 50mm 1.4, I see you have a 50mm 1.8, so ???

As with a lot of people I replaced my kit lens with the 16-80, this gave me a slightly wider view and a noticeable longer reach over the 18-70, would the tamron be replacing your kit lens? Would the decrease in reach bother you?

I looked at some of your flickr photos and it looks to me most are outdoors, so I would assume that you would prefer a longer reach on a lens and that a larger aperture wouldn't necessarily be a benefit to you and your landscape photography.

Just a couple things to consider, it's obviously up to you.

So in a straight up competition which would I get, I would get the 16-80, well I have got it.
If you do a lot of low light shooting then the tamron could be a better choice otherwise I would go for image quality and reach.
Logged
NAPP Member | KelbyTraining Alumni

Offline Stef.

  • Board Moderator
  • Can't shut me up
  • *****
  • Posts: 8476
    • View Profile
    • Stef's photographs
Re: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2010, 04:37:24 PM »
I can honestly say that I like both the same. Senior has a point though: usually at 17mm you will not use the lens at f2.8 as for lanscape images you will use a higher f stop. If you can get the CZ for a good price I would go for it as I think it will hold the value better than the Tamron. For the original price I would go for the Tamron.
Stef.
Logged
Stef.'s photographs
flickr

"Dream as if you'll live forever- live as if you'll die today"

Offline TSOPTC

  • Major Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2010, 07:08:06 PM »
Cheers, whats the going rate for a second hand CZ 16-80?

Just trying to see if this offer is a scam or is genuine.
Logged
Feel free to check out my photos on Flickr:
flickr.com/photos/TSOPTC
Sony a200 | Sony 18-70 3.5-5.6 | Tamron 55-200 F4-5.6 | Sony 50 1.8

Offline Numpty

  • Can't shut me up
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Red Bubble
Re: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2010, 08:36:52 PM »
Quick comparison here http://www.kurtmunger.com/nikon_d40id100.html

I am trying to make the same decision. Originally I was going for the tamron but am not so sure now how important constant apperture is to me.

The CZ will mean potentially more shots taken with a flash but its not an issue for me really and now I have a few primes of 2.8 or less it just means a lens change if I want natural low light shots and I tend to take all my lenses anyway and I think for me its going to be the CZ
Logged
Sony alpha A300
Sony 18-70mm  f/3.5-5.6
Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 SSM G
Sony 50mm f/1.8 SAM
Minolta 24mm f/2.8
Tamron 90mm Macro f/2.8
Sony 36 Flash
http://benwarren.redbubble.com/

Offline Rob aka [minolta mad]

  • Global Moderator
  • Can't shut me up
  • *****
  • Posts: 8085
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Robert Kendall Photography
Re: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2010, 09:41:06 PM »
The only thing i can add to what has already been said is that to get the same shrpness from both lenses, the Tamron needs to be stopped down to f/4. Having owned both id get the CZ every time.


Rob
Logged

Offline Radr

  • Regular Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2010, 01:07:00 PM »
I have Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I am very happy with that.
have a look on these photos:
http://www.pbase.com/timbateman/tamron_1750_28
Radr
Logged
Sony Alpha 700,SA18-70,Sigma70-300,Tamron17-50

Offline LyleG

  • Can't shut me up
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
    • View Profile
    • My Flikr, feel free to poke around
Re: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2010, 02:33:36 PM »
I have had both and prefer the Tamron 17-50
I found both equally sharp, same color, same contrast, the Tamron felt more solid. The big factor for me is speed. I can make up the 30mm focal range by walking forward a few steps. Speed on the other hand is hard to workaround.
Logged
Sigma 10-20 - CZ16-80 - Tamron 70-200/2.8 - Minolta 28/2.8 - Sony 50/1.8 - Kenko teleplus 300 1.4 TC - extension tubes - HVL42 (x2)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lylegenykphotography/

Offline alphaPDX

  • Regular Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2010, 07:00:58 PM »
I'd go for the Zeiss if budget allows.  I have a Minolta 50 so a lens that can do 50/2.8 does not work as a sales pitch.  I had Tamron's 17-35, a most excellent lens but too limited in range for my style.  Now I have Sigma's 17-70, which in fact is a clone of that 17-35 (f/2.8-f/4 range through 35mm) then adds the range I didn't have.  A fun lens with great close-focus talent.. but you didn't ask about that so I'll go quiet now :^)

Were I wealthier, I'd likely have gone straight to the 16-80.  No doubt though, impressively few complaints from any 17-50 owners.  Relax in the knowledge that you cannot lose if these are your choices - pick one and take marvelous images!
Logged
Jim R: A200 + Minolta 50:1.7, 35-105, 100-200 + Sigma 17-70, 18-200

Offline BurneySoo

  • Just Getting Going
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Gender: Male
  • PhotoManiacCrazy
    • View Profile
    • BurneySoo & Photo.Life Studio
Re: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2010, 02:13:22 AM »
Good Morning all! (Considering it's morning here in Malaysia) I'm new here and I've been somehow stuck with this question myself for some time now. But for me, I "Might" go for the Tamron 17-50mm.

What Mike (Senior) said is true since I won't be using f2.8 at 17mm, but that can always be changed when you want to. But for me, I would love to have f2.8 when I'm at 35mm or 28mm when I'm doing a wedding assignment. Would love the Bokeh and wideness. I have a Minolta 50mm f1.7, but the length is still a bit limited with my a700.

On another note, I would love to own the Zeiss too! But that would be just for the fact that it's a Zeiss. But after seeing some samples from it, I'd have to say that the Image Quality is still better than the Tamron. But, the apperture is f3.5 at 16! and f4.5 at 50! Not to say that it's a bad thing, but honestly, I'm a bokeh freak. So, the bokeh is just not as yummy as the Tamron. And the original price is not cheap too.

But, then again, Image Quality is still the best among all the Sony APS-C lenses. :D

BJS
Logged

Offline LyleG

  • Can't shut me up
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
    • View Profile
    • My Flikr, feel free to poke around
Re: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2010, 12:46:59 PM »
Quote from: BurneySoo on February 24, 2010, 02:13:22 AM

But, then again, Image Quality is still the best among all the Sony APS-C lenses. :D

BJS

This I dont agree with. Having had the CZ I can honestly say that its pre-processed images are no better than any other quality lens. The Tamron imo actually has better IQ. Far less bluing in the shadow areas, and I prefer its color to the CZ which is very cool.
Logged
Sigma 10-20 - CZ16-80 - Tamron 70-200/2.8 - Minolta 28/2.8 - Sony 50/1.8 - Kenko teleplus 300 1.4 TC - extension tubes - HVL42 (x2)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lylegenykphotography/

Offline ronnie_space

  • Major Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2010, 02:04:44 PM »
Cheapest I have seen the Tamron for is £299 and the Sony CZ £479.  I am looking at an upgrade to the kit 18-70mm lens and considering one of these two.

Ronnie
Logged
Sony A350, HVL42AM, 50mm F1.4, 70-300G, Tamron 17-50mm.

Offline panoramix24

  • Can't shut me up
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2010, 10:44:07 PM »
I have found that when choosing between 2 lenses the biggest factor is whether I will be happy choosing a cheaper lens over a more expensive when difference is really subjective one (i.e. Are the colors better or do I prefer the bokeh).

That is an answer that only each user can provide. Compared the tamron and CZ are totally different beast that aim to solve the same problem: upgrade the kit lens. CZ does this by probably putting "better glass" and adding range. Tamron does by working the speed. I am happy Tamron owner, my eye couldn't tell the difference between a picture with one or the other lens. However my wallet does feel the price difference.
Logged
A-300 / Minolta 28mm / SAL1870 / SAL100M28 / SAL70300g
Trying desperately to leave automatic function

Offline John27

  • Regular Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2010, 07:59:32 PM »
After trying to decide on a lens, I have opted for the tamron 17-50.  It's taken a while but now realising how bad the 18-70 kits lens is.  I was impressed with radr's pictures taken with the tamron, and I can't justify the extra cash on a CZ 16-80. 

John
Logged

Offline TSOPTC

  • Major Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Tamron 17-50 vs CZ 16-80
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2010, 10:08:07 PM »
Yeah think i'm gonna do the same to be honest, but thankyou everybody.
Logged
Feel free to check out my photos on Flickr:
flickr.com/photos/TSOPTC
Sony a200 | Sony 18-70 3.5-5.6 | Tamron 55-200 F4-5.6 | Sony 50 1.8
Pages: [1]