[seachunk2]

The wife & I own the following:

Kx along with the 18-55 kit lens.
K7 with the 18-55 WR and 55-200 WR kit lenses.
Pentax 55-300 DA
Pentax M 50/ 1.7
Sigma 40mm MF
Soligor 75-200 MF

I seem to switch lenses often between the 18-55 and the longer reach zooms, usually to either of the Pentax zooms. I do most of my shooting outdoors so I'm always concerned of picking up dust/pollen/beach sand in the process.

With the current rebate offer I can get a 18-200 Tamron for about $190. I'd probably would use this lens a lot even though it lacks the weather sealing. However, I like having the longer reach that 300mm offers so it's a bit shy of ideal.

I'd also want to pick up a good flash like a Metz 48/58 and a wide angle lens, maybe something like the 10-24 Tamron.

While I think I'd use the 18-200 a lot, it offers a redundant focal range.
I wouldn't want to sell any of my other lenses to make room for this one (the WR's are nice to have when needed, I like the 55-300's IQ and focal range, the Kx body is white and the wife likes having the matching 18-55 white lens, etc).

The only reason I'd want to Tamron is to cut down on how often I have to switch lenses. In most cases I can get away without WR and shooting with the 18-200 is generally all I need. However, I shoot birds so I'd still be switching to the 300 a lot & the 400 on some occasions.

So while the current deal on the Tamron seems compelling, I'm uncertain if it's a wise investment. I'm leaning on using the money for the flash and wide angle instead and just being careful and tolerating the hassle of switching the lenses.

I guess if the Tamron was an 18-250 WR and definitely if it were a 18-300 WR at a similar price as the 18-200 offer, I'd be more inclined to jump on it.

So would do you agree I should pass up on the 18-200 lens, even though the price is very good, and stick with saving for a good flash and a wide angle instead?

[TOUGEFC]

your not gaining anything in focal lenght by getting the 18-200 and ita still shy of 300 so you be changing lens to the 300 when needed anyway. Get the wide angle since you dont have one and a good flash instead

[jimr-pdx]

The 18-200 lenses didn't review well, although I had a good Sigma version in the past. It replaced my Tamron 18-250 which is rated better, but I preferred the smaller lens and IQ was very similar. Cameralabs website compares the two 18-200s and leans toward the Sigma, other info can be found at slrgear & the review corner here (edit never mind, 2 reviews for Sigma 0 for Tamron). Note 8-10 mpixels were the norm when these were introduced - I decided that going to 12-14 mpixels might be too much to ask for such a lens, so despite temptation I've refused (so far!).

I'm quite happy with DA16-45 and DAL55-300, two excellent lenses and just a small gap in coverage that a smidge of cropping from 45mm can fill. So by my standards you're in a great position now, but of course your exposure to dust sounds worse than mine. Perhaps a fast 24-70 or a 35-135 range would cause less swapping?

[JeffJS]

So while the current deal on the Tamron seems compelling, I'm uncertain if it's a wise investment. I'm leaning on using the money for the flash and wide angle instead and just being careful and tolerating the hassle of switching the lenses.

This would answer the question for me. I think you are far better off in terms of quality, switching lenses. Point the camera downward and block any wind with your body before swapping. Unless you are constantly going from 18mm to 200mm from shot to shot, I don't see a good reason to have an all in one. They usually suffer in quality at one end or the other.

[seachunk2]

Ok, thanks for the replies. It seems that my resistance to buy the 18-200 makes sense.
I'll hold off on the flash for now and start focusing on a wide zoom (no pun intended). In the running is the Tamron 10-24 or Sigma 10-20 being that they are moderately priced. I'd imagine that I'll use it more towards the 10 mm range for landscape. Would these type lens be considered fish-eye or is that a separate lens because I'd also like to dabble in that area as well. Are there other lens I should consider that are in the <$400 range- give or take a bit?

[Ira]

Would these type lens be considered fish-eye or is that a separate lens because I'd also like to dabble in that area as well. Are there other lens I should consider that are in the <$400 range- give or take a bit?

The Sigma isn't fisheye (don't know about the Tamron but doubt it), and it gets excellent reviews. But that's not under $400 like you're saying, right?

Also look at the Pentax 10-17, which is a phenomenal lens. It gives you fisheye at the wide end, but it's not a ridiculous fisheye. As you zoom in, you lose the fisheye.

Also, do you live near the city? If so, you can really get a lot of mileage out of ultra-wides like these. Yeah, they're good for a lot of situations, but for city street scenes, you'll be shooting in a whole new world.

[aleonx3]

Ok, thanks for the replies. It seems that my resistance to buy the 18-200 makes sense.
I'll hold off on the flash for now and start focusing on a wide zoom (no pun intended). In the running is the Tamron 10-24 or Sigma 10-20 being that they are moderately priced. I'd imagine that I'll use it more towards the 10 mm range for landscape. Would these type lens be considered fish-eye or is that a separate lens because I'd also like to dabble in that area as well. Are there other lens I should consider that are in the <$400 range- give or take a bit?

I started out with similar interest as you in the super zoom, but soon find out that wide is more useful. Either one of the Sigma 10-20 or DA 12-24 would be good. I have the 12-24mm, this is my "go-to" lens when I am traveling - sharp wide-open. I bought it used before price hike (around 500) and it is one of my best purchases (plus the three amigo FA ltd).

[Lowell Goudge]

Do you and your wife share equipment? If so then why are you constantly changing lenses? I would use one body for each lens and be done with it

A lot of time when I travel that is exactly what I do I think you would be disappointed with a super zoom as it is slower than the lenses you are presently using. You would be better served getting an ultra wide zoom and a flash

[seachunk2]

The wife and I occasionally shoot together and when we do, we'll mount separate type lenses on each of the bodies so we're covered FL wise. But I'm more of the enthusiast and go out regularity in more extreme conditions whereas she'll wish me good luck on those days and goes shopping.
Anyway, I've already decided to fore-go on the 18-200 and aim for a wide angle zoom and later on a good flash. The Tamron is available through Amazon for $399 after a $100 rebate that's good till Oct. 10th. The Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 is at $479 but I could wait for a good sale. A quick look at the Pentax 10-17 seems impressive but now the price will likely break the $500 mark.
I'm a shopper with patience so as long as I know what group of WA lenses to aim for I can wait for the right price to kick in. That's why the Tamron might be a go right now with the current $100 rebate.