Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-11-2007, 04:30 AM   #16
Senior Member
matix's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 239
Original Poster
Some examples of the Tamron 18-250 in normal use

QuoteOriginally posted by lipsestraat Quote
I have a Sigma 18-200 and am dissapointed when using it at 200mm.
Can you guys post a few 100% crops of the Tamron at 200 and 250 mm ?

Does anyone have both the Tamron and the Sigma to do a direct comparison at 200mm ?

Thanks,
Erik.
Well today, Saturday, I took the K10D and the Tamron DiII 18-250 to a local gardens... I think it aquitted itself very well, I would say it has at least a 90% success rate on acceptable image capture, it is a keeper for me.

Some examples here, little or no PP, cropping to show 100% on a couple, but basically they are from the camera and JPG. I shot RAW too, but the JPG's were pretty good.

Phil
Mt. Cootha Test Shots 11-08-2007

For comparison, these shots were taken a few months ago, all with the Sigma 18-200 DC on the K10D

A Sunday Drive in January

08-11-2007, 08:06 AM   #17
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
Hi "lipsestraat" (Erik)

Reading your last message regarding the use of your Sigma 18-200 zoom lens at it's 200mm setting, if I can equate the focal length with conventional 35mm film standards for a moment (taking into account the 1.5 magnification factor of the APS-C sensor), then using a 35mm film camera means that you'd be trying to hand-hold images steady at around an equivalent of 300mm !!
I don't know about you, but at that kind of zoom distance I would definitely be utilising a tripod to take such photographs if I wanted to achieve 'pin-sharp' results !!
Unless you have incredibly stable hands or can 'brace' yourself against a solid object, I'm not entirely surprised that some of your images are turning out somewhat blurred. Even the most effective SR (Shake Reduction) has it's upper limits !!

Best regards
Richard

Last edited by Confused; 08-14-2007 at 08:26 AM.
08-11-2007, 09:42 AM   #18
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
In reply to "Richard Day"

Please don't take this information as 'absolute gospel', but I've followed your instructions carefully and obtained identical results from my K10D body & Tamron 18-250 3.5-6.3 DiII lens on both occasions, so here are my findings:

F 3.5 - 18mm
F 4.0 - 23mm
F 4.5 - 38mm
F 5.6 - 69mm
F 6.2 - 169mm
F 6.3 - 219mm

I hope this information is what you needed to find out ?

Best regards
Richard

Last edited by Confused; 08-11-2007 at 12:53 PM.
08-11-2007, 04:28 PM   #19
Veteran Member
raider's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,943
I am also keen in this information about the focal length and f-stop thingy.

I observed that the F-stop from 70mm onward is F6.2/F6.3?? If so, I think this lens is only usesable in good lighting! To confirm my suspicition, do u think u can try to get the f-stop number at say 100mm, 120mm, 140mm, etc? Can u also get the f-stop at 50mm, 55mm?

Thanks alot.

08-11-2007, 05:00 PM   #20
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10
QuoteOriginally posted by Confused Quote
Hi "lipsestraat" (Erik)

Reading your last message regarding the use of your Sigma 18-200 zoom lens at it's 200mm setting, if I can equate the focal length with conventional 35mm film standards for a moment (taking into account the 1.5 magnification factor of the APS-C sensor), then using a 35mm film camera means that you'd be trying to hand-hold images steady at around an equivalent of 300mm !!
I don't know about you, but at that kind of zoom distance I would definitely be utilising a tripod to take such photographs if I wanted to achieve pin-sharp results !!
Unless you have incredibly stable hands or can 'brace' yourself against a solid object, I'm not entirely surprised that some of your images are turning out somewhat blurred. Even the most effective SR (Shake Reduction) has it's upper limits !!

Best regards
Richard
Well, maybe I was a bit naive in thinking that SR would solve all of these problems.
I've dumped an example picture (and some theory why SR fails) in:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/10545-help-blurry-pictures.html

Erik.
08-12-2007, 04:22 AM   #21
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gloucester UK
Posts: 441
QuoteOriginally posted by Confused Quote
In reply to "Richard Day"

Please don't take this information as 'absolute gospel', but I've followed your instructions carefully and obtained identical results from my K10D body & Tamron 18-250 3.5-6.3 DiII lens on both occasions, so here are my findings:

F 3.5 - 18mm
F 4.0 - 23mm
F 4.5 - 38mm
F 5.6 - 69mm
F 6.2 - 169mm
F 6.3 - 219mm

I hope this information is what you needed to find out ?

Best regards
Richard
Thank you Richard!
08-12-2007, 04:38 AM   #22
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gloucester UK
Posts: 441
QuoteOriginally posted by raider Quote
I am also keen in this information about the focal length and f-stop thingy.

I observed that the F-stop from 70mm onward is F6.2/F6.3?? If so, I think this lens is only usesable in good lighting! To confirm my suspicition, do u think u can try to get the f-stop number at say 100mm, 120mm, 140mm, etc? Can u also get the f-stop at 50mm, 55mm?

Thanks alot.
It's f5.6 up to 169mm where it changes to a reported f6.2

It's pretty much the norm for any of the consumer super-zooms, the Tamron shows pretty much the same apertures at the various focal lengths as most of it's competitors at their maximums, i.e. f4.5 up to 69/70mm (Sigma 17-70), f5.6 upwards to 125mm (Sigma 18-125) and beyond to 169mm, and f6.3 at 200mm (Sigma 18-250).
08-12-2007, 05:03 AM   #23
Veteran Member
raider's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,943
Thanks Richard for your info.

08-12-2007, 07:12 AM   #24
Veteran Member
Duh_Vinci's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,286
Glad you are enjoying your new lens, images look sharp and vivid!

Though I must admit, I'm a bit surprised to see such results from your old Sigma... I've owned that lens, and compared it to two copies of Tamron 18-200mm, Sigma was much sharper at all focal lengths...

I really suspect you have a "bad" copy - mine was very sharp at all focal lengths, I posted few sample photos here https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/3902-sigma-18-200mm-lens.html

18-250 would make a perfect "one lens" travel companion, so when I'm done purchasing both DA*s and whenever Sigma makes 70-200mm f/2.8 available in HSM version - I think Tamron would join my travel camera bag (just one question - when?)

Regards,
D
08-12-2007, 07:48 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Owego, NY
Posts: 976
Curse you all. This is going to wind up being another large wallet hole in a few months thanks to this thread.
08-14-2007, 12:29 PM   #26
Veteran Member
rfortson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Houston TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,129
I've found this lens to be very handy, and the image quality is fine for how I use it (I don't print larger than 8x10, though I'll try some 11x14's in the near future). I used it for my trip to Peru and it worked fine for all types of shots. Low light shots are okay as long as you can brace yourself. The SR really helps there. Here are a few examples. You can see LOTS more in my Flickr stream, including full sized shots (for the pixel peepers out there).

Full zoom along the Sacred Valley:


Wide view of the same shot (18mm):


Low light inside a cathedral:


"Macro" shot at 250mm (not from Peru):


All in all, it's a very versatile lens and can give some great shots within reasonable limits (no printing posters, no extreme crops, no low-light action shots). I've created a group on Flickr for the Tamron 18-250 called (surprisingly enough) "Tamron 18-250". Check it out for a variety of shots from other people.
08-14-2007, 12:58 PM   #27
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
Tamron

QuoteOriginally posted by matix Quote
Just received my Tamron 18-250 3.5-6.3 DiII yesterday, and hey it is a bargain. Yep, already I can hear the purists in the forum harrumphing about zooms vs primes vs DA* vs Macros, BUT.

This is a darnn good lens, way better than the Sigma 18-200 I had before, and if used properly within it's limitations seems to turn out some really great images.

For example, this morning I shot a few closeups of peach blossom, the results were so good I did not bother putting on a Macro.

f/16 - 1/90th - 58mm - iso 200



Have taken a bunch more test shots, will post if anyone is interested.

Phil
I have always been a big fan of Tamron lenses from their 80-200 f 2.8 which I used in the eighties to the 28-75 f 2.8 lens used up until recently. They make some of the best value for the money lenses out there. Great choice and enjoy.

Ben
08-14-2007, 02:09 PM   #28
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
To "rfortson"

Really nice 'pin-sharp' photos all of them and this just goes to reinforce the growing reputation of Tamron's new 18mm - 250mm Di II 'walkaround' lens.

Best regards
Richard
08-14-2007, 07:34 PM   #29
Senior Member
matix's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 239
Original Poster
Sharp? I will show you Sharp!

QuoteOriginally posted by Confused Quote
To "rfortson"

Really nice 'pin-sharp' photos all of them and this just goes to reinforce the growing reputation of Tamron's new 18mm - 250mm Di II 'walkaround' lens.

Best regards
Richard
You want to see some 'Sharp' images, check these out...

Phil

Shots from a cactus garden with the Tamron 18-250
08-14-2007, 08:36 PM   #30
Site Supporter
daacon's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Alberta,Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 20,831
I also have one - I bought it for the exact same reasons , couple of trips comming up wanted a walk around lens. I find it much better than both my Sigmas and it is only 50 mm shorter.

As for low light - ISO compensation is a great friend. I was at an indoor wedding over the weeked. I was sitting quite a ways back. I left it on auto ISO (Doooooooh) , and between 200-250 for most of the shots. When the subjects were still the shots were awsome. When walking and I tried to pan because of my lack of skill there was some shots wasted. You are correct in low light at 250 motion becomes an issue (at auto iso anyway). This would not be my primary use anyway.

I agree with all though it is a keeper and will replace two lenses I already have - time to sell the sigma's and perhaps get a replacement Bigma
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens, tamron, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sigma 18-250 or Pentax/Tamron 18-250? mjbens01 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 07-08-2010 09:10 PM
Pentax 18-250 always same as Tamron 18-250? kitkat Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 07-08-2010 08:30 AM
Some real good off trail hiking... [8 IMG] Duplo Post Your Photos! 12 09-17-2009 06:57 AM
Why DA18-250 is double the price of Tamron 18-250? raider Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 12-13-2008 05:40 AM
CA in the DA*16-50 vs Tamron 28-75 in real world 123K10D Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 02-23-2008 02:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:36 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top