Tamron 17-50 vs Sony 16-50

Hello I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8. I have seen the new Sony 16-50. I'm Wondering if it worth the upgrade. My camera is A580. Thank you

The Sony lens is way overpriced and definitely not worth any improvement it "might" have.

The Sony is clearly sharper at F2.8. For me this is reason enough to choose the Sony. And the silent SSM is a benefit too, especially for video.

andreac75 said:

Hello I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8. I have seen the new Sony 16-50. I'm Wondering if it worth the upgrade. My camera is A580. Thank you

Click to expand...

For me the primary reasons for buying the Sony are:

1. Its weather sealed... that is why I bought the A77 to begin with, so why undo all that with a non-weather sealed lens.

2. Silent SSM focus for video... I bought the A77 because I was hoping to stop carrying a camera as well as camcorder for every school event.

I obviously don't know why you are looking at replacing the Tamron with the Sony... but I am sure that your mileage will vary greatly from mine (or anyone elses) depending on your usecase. the value you are able to get out of either lens will depend upon what it is that you are doing with the lens.

I'm not 100% satisfied of the Tamron 17-50 2.8. It takes good picture but at 2.8 they are too soft and not so better than my Sony 18-250. I can see a big improvement at f8. I also take photo with an old Minolta 50mm 1.7 and they looks better (again starting from f4). So I was looking for this new lens but the prise is so high that I'm wondering if it's its value and if photo can be really better than those I get with Tamron.

I'm also going to try Sony 35mm 1.8. I think prime lenses are better but not so usefull for "relaxing" photos.

andreac75 said:

Hello I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8. I have seen the new Sony 16-50. I'm Wondering if it worth the upgrade. My camera is A580. Thank you

Click to expand...

A worthwhile upgrade IF purchased as a kit with the A77.

Than you have a bad copy. My 17-50 that I had was great in the center and only a little drop off in the corners. My 17-50 was sharp across the zoom range and of course stopping down will make it even sharper when pixel peeping but on prints from your printer not noticeable. If you can afford the 16-50 than get it and sell your Tamron.

andreac75 said:

I'm not 100% satisfied of the Tamron 17-50 2.8. It takes good picture but at 2.8 they are too soft and not so better than my Sony 18-250. I can see a big improvement at f8. I also take photo with an old Minolta 50mm 1.7 and they looks better (again starting from f4). So I was looking for this new lens but the prise is so high that I'm wondering if it's its value and if photo can be really better than those I get with Tamron.

I'm also going to try Sony 35mm 1.8. I think prime lenses are better but not so usefull for "relaxing" photos.

Click to expand...

--
Tony

A100, A700, Sony 16-105, & 35/1.8, Minolta 50/ 1.7, and Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di & 55-200