[daacon]

Those people should be getting advanced P&S not (D)SLR cameras

It is pretty simple , for me I have situations where weight , bulk and time are limited (example on Sunday I am going to San Fran for 2 days which there will be very little free time). I would rather shoot with the K10D and the Tamron 18-250 than with my Lumix.

[simonkit]

The Tamron/Pentax 18-250 provides an interesting option. I currently own the Sigma 17-70 & wouldn't for a second sell it to buy the 18-250 as a replacement, the 17-70 is a great lens.

I may however consider buying the 18-250 to use when travelling etc and not being too particular on the exacting qualities of the final result, the main importance being actually catching the shots.

simon

So true! I just don't get why people buy an interchangeable lens system when all they want to do is slap one toally mediocre super zoom on it. It's total madness and a waste of money.

Those people should be getting advanced P&S not (D)SLR cameras

Some people buy SLRs cos they have better IQ and they can buy what they need to do what they want. Some others simply buy them cos they can afford it and it is an option as valid as any other (even when I dont share it). They can also buy it because they think it is trendy to buy a bunch of lens and feel better about it. Considering this megazooms they have their utilities and limitations. I dont like to carry ten lenses when I am traveling/hiking so I think that a megazoom with an medium-high IQ is worth it for that purpose. And it is even more useful when you are traveling with somebody else who doesnt care to much for photography. Other people like to carry several high quality zooms. Some other several cameras, primes and zooms. Some other a truck filled with lenses. I wont use the tamron for macro, or for still life pictures or for sports or many other things for what I think that it is not that useful. So it is not difficult to understand why to have that lens doesnt mean that you can have others. BTW I also use a crappy Nikon coolpix 2000 in many trips and I have some photos that I love.

[TheWengler]

I'm riding in the same boat as you. I'm thinking of selling the 16-45 along with the Tamron 70-300 to pay for a 18-250. Buying the 18-250 and keeping the 16-45 isn't really an option as I'll need to sell the two to pay for the one. I haven't decided if I'd go for the Tamron or Pentax version. Are there build quality differences? I'm assuming the Pentax version price will drop at some point. Any idea how long that takes? If I do decide to get the 18-250, I'll be buying it and testing it before I sell anything.

[Canada_Rockies]

I'm riding in the same boat as you. I'm thinking of selling the 16-45 along with the Tamron 70-300 to pay for a 18-250. Buying the 18-250 and keeping the 16-45 isn't really an option as I'll need to sell the two to pay for the one. I haven't decided if I'd go for the Tamron or Pentax version. Are there build quality differences? I'm assuming the Pentax version price will drop at some point. Any idea how long that takes? If I do decide to get the 18-250, I'll be buying it and testing it before I sell anything.

The Pentax will be a bit better for flare and contrast, and perhaps color, as it will be SMC. I have read that the mechanicals will be beefed up a bit as well. On the other hand, despite my quip earlier, I'll not be buying that lens. I have 'em all (almost).

[Buddha Jones]

Different types of lenses are made for different kinds o people with different kinds of needs. For me, I'd rather have the two high IQ lenses than the one med-high IQ lens. But that is because a lot of the shots that I take are planned out. Macros fir when Im in the house or in the garden, long zoom when in the yard or on the trail, portrait for when I am around my friends.

Unfortunately I havent been on a vacation in forever so the need for anything different hasnt come up, hopefully that will change, and if/when it does and I find that I get fedup with having to change lenses as I am walking around, you bet your bottom dollar that I will be buying the 18-250mm or comparable lens.

But the bottom line is getting the images that you want, the right pictures at the right moment, and if that requires a megazoom to make it happen, then by all means get the megazoom.

[Snowcat]

So true! I just don't get why people buy an interchangeable lens system when all they want to do is slap one toally mediocre super zoom on it. It's total madness and a waste of money.

Those people should be getting advanced P&S not (D)SLR cameras

You dont understand fully a difference perhaps between an advanced P&S and DSRL. I just upgraded my Lumix FZ-30 to GX10. FZ-30 is (IMHO) THE most advanced P&S ever made to this point. FZ-50 has worse matrix, it's sotfer, FZ-18... well, it's from the lower family really. Other manufacturers just cannot compete in these cameras, at least because they all have smaller matrix. And they DONT have Leica lenses, those (in that market) are really unbeatable.
But still those very good cameras of upper FZ series have limitations and VERY BIG limitations. And I came to those limitations very close. So I had to upgrade, and got GX-10. Which I am very happy about.
Fast burst mode, great high ISO perormance (today I shot cats exhibition at ISO800 mainly and I am happy with what I got), at last I am able to make normal night shots, and so on. Many-many advantages, really!
BUT I was happy and comfortable with FZ-30's 35-420mm (EFR) focal range. More of that, i was not only just enjoying it, I LOVED it, it doubled the fun from shooting. And of course I will get myself 18-250 for my GX-10. Just to have all that flexibility I had on my previous camera, to have all that fun.
And in addition to all advantages of DSLR I'll have with 18-250 over the FZ-30, the interchangeable lenses give me opportunity to have even more, preserving my shooting style for almost all cases, yet being able to shoot REAL macro (that's gonna be my 2nd lens to get after 18-250) and REAL tele for birding e.t.c. (the thrid lens will be the Bigma 50-500).

So yes, my GX-10 is the next ultrazoom for me. With more capabilities in "main" configuration (18-250), and two "backup" configurations for special cases (macro and Bigma).

[TheWengler]

My main concern about the 18-250 lens is the image sharpness, CAs and build quality. I really enjoy using the 16-45 and have no complaints. I read some reviews claiming pretty bad CAs but haven't really experienced this. With my my Tamron 70-300 I can't seem to take any pictures w/o a weird CA/purple fringing glow. This is a big issue because my pp software (PSE 5) doesn't have a tool to remove them. I also don't really like the build quality of this lens. The poor performance of my 70-300 is what tempts me to move to the 18-250. It's also what makes me hesitant to purchase the Tamron version, though a 6 year warranty is hard to beat. All that said, there is concern some that I would just be trading one problem for another. The overall speed of the lens isn't really an issue for me as I have the 50mm f/1.4 to take care of low light/portrait situations. I didn't really ask any questions here, but some advice regarding this analysis/decision from more experience users would be nice.

[bjsmith]

Having tried a Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 and owning both the DA 16-45 f/4 and DA 50-200 f/4-5.6, I can honestly say that if you already own the DA 16-45 f/4, you'll want the DA 50-200 f/4-5.6 with it rather than going with a 10x+ superzoom where IQ is suspect. If you just had the DA 18-55 kit lens, then maybe this is an option. But you already have the DA 16-45 and you won't want to take it off for this.

First off, owning the DA 16-45, I utterly hate being "limited" to 18mm. I even sold my Zenitar 16mm fisheye and didn't even look at the Sigma DC EX 10-20 (I went directly to the DA 10-17 fisheye for uber-wide, and the curverature works fine for American football stadiums and other "fun"), because the DA 16-45 is more than 18mm and close enough to 16mm fisheye. The DA 16-45 is "just right" and most people say it's the lens they use the most (I sure do).

Secondly, the DA 50-200 was a steal when the rebate was $50 or double ($100) with a new body. Now it's just $25 with a body (and no rebate at all without a body purchase). I got an oustanding sample and it seems 4 out of 5 do. The IQ is stellar. The f-stop is 4.5 at 135mm (just over 200mm equivalent), so that is a nice, sweet spot as well with the lens. Cannot recommend this lens enough, and if you get a "poor sample" (like in the PhotoZone.DE review), return it and get another from the reseller.

Now that doesn't mean I don't wish I had more reach than 200mm (306mm equivalent) at times. I'm still holding out for the proposed DA 55-300mm, and I'm really considering the 5.1" long FA 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 even though the IQ isn't as good as the DA 50-200. But I think either would be better than 10x+ superzoom when it comes to IQ.

BTW, my Tamron 28-300mm f/3.6-6.3 is still available if anyone wants it. I don't recommend it for anyone who cares about good IQ, but it's a nice walkabout lens if you really want an extreme range on a budget (I think I was asking $80 shipped).

[Confused]

Hi Lukas (TheWengler)

Re your recent query:

I'm considering purchasing the Pentax or Tamron 18-250mm lens. I'm wondering if you have problems with CAs with this lens. I'd also like your opinion on sharpness and build quality of the lens. Thank you for any help you can give me. It's much appreciated.

I'm certainly no expert in the area concerning potential problems that might exist with regard to Chromatic Aberration in either version of this 18-250mm lens. Thus far I have not even physically seen the new Pentax variant and clearly cannot comment yet on it's specific qualities. Nonetheless, I find it quite hard to imagine that there will be measurable/noticeable difference between these two lenses, although I might well be proved wrong......let's wait and see what reviewers and users have to say !
As a matter of interest I still own an early Fuji S602Z 'bridge' camera and very occasionally I've noticed slight CA issues with strongly backlit subjects. Thus far I haven't seen much evidence of CA with my Tamron Di II, although that's not to say that it isn't present ! However CA can so easily eliminated with the latest commercial photographic software packages **(including many free ones) that I wouldn't let this matter concern you unduly.
At the time that I purchased my DSLR equipment, I wasn't sure whether or not it would be a good idea to purchase the 18-55 kit lens, as the lower end of the Tamron 18-250mm obviously duplicated the same optical range. After briefly trying out both lenses in quick succession, I was slightly surprised to discover that Pentax's 18-55mm kit lens felt distinctly 'wobbly' when compared with Tamron's 18-250mm Di II substantially constructed superzoom. I'm not yet a prime lens 'convert' myself, but seriously doubt whether you would be disappointed by the sharpness of this lens. Many experts would argue that a superzoom will inevitably produce softer images at both ends of it's optical range compared with dedicated primes, but so far I have had no cause whatsoever to complain about questionable image quality.
Ask yourself one essential question: "would Pentax have gone to the trouble of obtaining the licensing rights to manufacture this lens, if such doubts had ever been of the slightest concern ?"
Here's hoping that this info is of some help with your eventual decision.....

Best regards
Richard

**Free Software links:

Photo-Freeware.net - Image Editing Freeware Download Source

IrfanView - Official Homepage - one of the most popular viewers worldwide

FastStone Image Viewer, Screen Capture, Photo Resizer ...

Picasa

GIMP - The GNU Image Manipulation Program

UFRaw - Download & Install

[123K10D]

get the tamron 18-250. if you get a bad copy (unlikely), send it back.

a lot of posters rubbish the IQ of this lens. if you want to see what it really does, do a seach for it on flickr. then ask yourself if those shots seem soft to you?

things i can do with this lens that surprised me:

1. track moving objects
2. low light focusing
3. leave it set at a position (say 50mm) and it actually stays there until i move it - creepless.
4. have sharp photos from wide open.

the corners aren't as sharp (under a microscope), so if you take photos where the corner detail is hyper critical, get a DA40 f2.8 or a tamron 28-70 f2.8.

i've never shot anything where the extreme corners tell the story of the photo, so it's not going to be an issue for me. and the corners didn't seem any sharper with the DA*50-135 i tried - maybe it was a dud copy?

[bjsmith]

get the tamron 18-250. if you get a bad copy (unlikely), send it back.

If he didn't already have the 16-45, I'd agree.
But since he already has the 16-45, I'd say the DA 50-200 would be a better move.
Especially since the DA 50-200 is not quite as slow, f/4.5 at 135mm and f/5.6 and 200mm.

Although one thing I'd like to see is the IQ of the DA 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 versus the FA 80-320 f/4.5-5.6.
I'm considering the FA 80-320 f/4.5-5.6 as it seems the DA 55-300 is still a ways out.
But if the DA 18-250 IQ is on-par, I might consider it as a nice, single-solution instead -- although it may just be too slow overall.

[qdoan]

Having tried a Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 and owning both the DA 16-45 f/4 and DA 50-200 f/4-5.6, I can honestly say that if you already own the DA 16-45 f/4, you'll want the DA 50-200 f/4-5.6 with it rather than going with a 10x+ superzoom where IQ is suspect.

I owned the Tamrom 28-300 at one point and sold it for the 18-250. The range of new Tamron I found to much more useful, and optically is much better than the 28-300.

Again it comes down for what you're really going to use it for. I bought the 18-250 as a supplemental vacation lens as its lightweight and gets the job done. If you're planning on doing some more dedicated photowork than vacation travel and have the flexibilty to change lenses, by all means, get the 50-200mm

[sweetpapa]

Thanks to everybody that replied. This thread really helped to make up my mind.

I've decided I will be getting the 50-200 for Christmas which means I will need a Slingshot 100 to hold my gear... Come on Santa, hope you're listening, be nice to me this year!!

The main reasons for going with the 50-200 for me are IQ and also needing to shoot more to figure out if I need the 18-250 and the 50-200 is a great deal for the quality of lens.

A lot of people have pointed out that each of the lens I mentioned have their purpose and getting the 50-200 to use with the 16-45 will give me the best IQ.

Since I'm a new DSLR owner, I haven't figured out my shooting style and using the 50-200 for a while will let me know if I need the 18-250 in the future.

If I do get the 18-250, then it will be for the purpose of a travel lens and not to replace the 16-45 and 50-200 combo ( am I suffering from LBA yet? ).

[bjsmith]

If I do get the 18-250, then it will be for the purpose of a travel lens and not to replace the 16-45 and 50-200 combo ( am I suffering from LBA yet? ).

With you already owning the DA 16-45, that's probably the best consideration.
If you didn't already have the DA 16-45, then the single 18-250 might have been a better choice.