[simonkit]

Considering possible upgrades to the 50-200 kit lens & after reading several reviews/forum threads it seems there is little to choose between the 2 70-300 variants.

The Tamron 18-250 gets very good reviews on Photozone etc & I wondered if anyone had compared if with the 70-300 options ?

thanks

simon

[axl]

couple of guys from this forum own 18-250 and they can't say much bad about it. Apparently it's quite good actualy. As for me, I can't compare. I only have Tamron 70-300, which I find really good. It's relatively light weight, sharp, and acceptably fast with focusing. Only issue with it is bit of CA in high contrast situation, but as I heard / read, many other tamrons suffer from the same thing. Sigma 70-300 should be better in this respect, but is reportedly softer.
Anyway, 70-300 gives you extra 50 (on dSLR 75) mm. That is bit of an difference. Plus if you have respectable wide lens (f.e.: Sigma 17-70) why would you want to have 18-250?!? Yes there is convenience of not having to change lenses so often, but I'd still go for 70-300 which ever you choose.
Good luck with it...

[Entropy]

The 18-250 is gaining a rep for the best choice for an "all in one" walkabout lens.

If you're switching lenses, then one of the 70-300 options may be better for you.

If you want the One Lens that won't be leaving the camera on many outings, it sounds like the Tamron 18-250 is the way to go.

Even though I already own a Quantaray-rebadged version of the Tamron 70-300, the 18-250 tempts me as far as providing a hiking/walkabout lens for when carrying multiple lenses around is just too much gear.

[pleo]

Having the 70-300 myself:
It's a very good lens - sharp, well-made, light-weight.

I'm getting the 18-250 this week (one-lens solution for hiking) and will make some comparison shots.
But from what I know:

It's not really 250mm on the long end so there will be a bigger lap to the 70-300.
As for a comparison with Sigma-lenses:
I had the Sigma AF 4-5.6 APO-version but the Tamron stayed with me for it's simply/obviously better sharpness!

[simonkit]

Thanks for the replies.

To be honest the tele end of focal range isn't something I'm going to use too often - 90% of my photography is landscape whilst hiking etc & the Sigma 17-70 is pretty much perfect for this, very impressive lens.

I'm going to give my 50-200 a few more outings until I can decide but if I'm to replace it the Tamron 70-300 seems to be the best option. I may well buy the Tamron 18-250 in future for travelling purposes but for now I don't really see a great use for it

simon

[Confused]

Hi Simon

I bought the Tamron 18-250mm Di II together with a K10D body & D BG-2 grip about a month ago, as I was initially looking for a general high-quality 'walkaround' lens, before seeeing if I needed to invest in some of the expensive new DA prime glass. Prior to buying this outfit, I owned a fairly old 6MP Fuji S602Z 'bridge' camera that covered a 35-210mm range, which I found particularly frustrating when shooting landscapes, as it simply wasn't wide enough for my requirements. In my experience, I have nothing but praise for the Tamron 18-250mm Di II's optical abilities and the sheer freedom of not having to constantly keep swapping over lenses means I gain far more enjoyment from actually taking photographs, not to mention minimising the chance of getting unwanted dust particles on the actual sensor ! My only other advice would be to SERIOUSLY take a look at Sigma's latest 10-20mm super wide-angle, as I shall shortly be purchasing one of these astonishing items specifically for landscape & architectural photography. A friend of mine has used a 10-20mm on his C****n 30D for quite a while, which is how I first came to hear about this remarkable product and view the pictures he'd taken with it. I am genuinely very excited about the prospect of owning one and the vista through the viewfinder is utterly breathtaking. I feel pretty convinced that this Sigma will radically alter the way that I approach landscape photography from now on. To give you an example, during the process of purchasing my K10D, I was able to try the 10-20mm DSM outside the store and I was totally blown away by the apparent lack of visible distortion. That which might be present can quite easily be corrected nowadays via software in post-processing and the 'framing-ability' to zoom in from 10mm - 20mm is far greater than you might at first expect, reinforced by solid construction and reassuring feel. However, I feel it only fair to warn you that there have been some well-publicised instances of decentering and focussing issues, mainly due to sloppy quality control in early samples of the 10-20mm. It would be as well to check this out prior to purchase, if buying it from a reputable dealer. Mail order would probably be an entirely different matter, so you'd be advised to get some kind of firm refund or exchange agreement in place before ordering ! I sincerely hope this information helps with your eventual decision,

Best regards
Richard

P.S. You will find a 'shed-load' of Sigma 10-20mm user reviews at:

FM Reviews - 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM

[matix]

Hi Simon, I have the Tamron 18-250 and love it.. prior to this I had both the Sigma 70-300 and the Sigma 18-200, both of which I found to be rather poor unless stopped down a lot.

The Tamron has consistently blown me away with it's clarity and contrast, and rarely leaves my K10D now. It is also a great Macro lens, although at 250mm is only good without flash in daylight.

This example of a peach blossom was shot at 250mm and F16.



The Sigma 10-20 EX is also in my bag, and this too is an exceptional lens, and I use it a lot more than any prime I have. In fact I am close to reducing my lens arsenal down, and the first ones to go will be the SMC 50mm 1.7, and the SMC 50mm 1.4 FA. Frankly, the 10-20 IMHO is a better option.

This shot of the Sydney Harbour Bridge was shot with the Sigma 10-20, 10mm at F11. As I was almost under the bridge, there is an interesting amount of distortion and this has not been adjusted in any way.



Phil

[Mechan1k]

I can attest how hard it ia trying to get the bridge all in shot close up ... near bloody impossible.

You need to be a fair way back to at least capture the bridge and pilon in.

[matix]

I can attest how hard it ia trying to get the bridge all in shot close up ... near bloody impossible.

You need to be a fair way back to at least capture the bridge and pilon in.

I guess if I had stepped back a few yards I could have gotten the other pylon in, but it was covered in construction barricades and orange tape, looked like crap, so I ignored it.

Phil