Quote Originally Posted by laydros View Post
Don, I've been looking at that CZ 16-80. I could certainly see myself getting by with the 17-50 and a 70-300 to really get by, missing 20mm isn't terrible. Plus I will have this new lens to fill that gap.... and the CZ 16-80 is WAY more expensive. But you make a good point, plus it would defer the need to get an UWA even further than the 17-50. But how big is the aperture difference. What apertures does the Tamron 17-50 need to be used, and what apertures would the CZ need? And while I'm asking... what apertures are the 50mm 1.7 or 1.4 and the 24 or 28 2.8 primes usable at. I'm reading a lot of lens reviews and it seems like most seem to say that whatever lens is being reviewed isn't really sharp wide open, and they always suggest stepping down.
The two TAMRON's f/2.8 aperture across the entire focal range is impressive. It's hard to fight that kind of performance, indoors, and why I am in the unenviable spot of trying to justify the CZ 16-80 f/3.5-4.5.

The biggest attraction to the SONY lens is that it is a bit "sharper" and "contrasty" than the TAMRON lenses. Also, you do NOT need to change the lens off to either get the longer or wider range. It meets up nicely with the 70-XXX lenses and is less to carry and fumble around with. That aspect has some value, Jason. How much ... well, that depends on you and your shooting.

Like I mentioned earlier, it would be the one in my bag if I had not already owned the 17-50mm f/2.8. I actually debated about buying it, when I examined it in the SONY Style store, but caught myself and wound up getting the 28-75 f/2.8 to "brother up" with the wider lens.

If you cannot decide ... just flip a coin ... it really is that insignificant a choice. I just believe one quality lens could be a better answer. Convenient and with the full range.

Hope this helps.