[magkelly]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

I've got one of the digital versions of this lens and it's not a bad lens at all if that reach will do you. I'm using it less since I snagged my 75-300 Sigma, but I still hesitate to sell the Tamron. $60 is steal for one actually. I've seen them going for around $100 depending upon condition. I sometimes see a bargain version of the lens for about that, but not an EX copy. I'd take a look and see how great it looks. If it's in EX condition I'd grab it. It's a good all day lens unless you're planning on birding, it will do you rather well actually.

[ripit]

But for someone who, after examining the Exif of their own photos as I have done for mine, finds they really do shoot telephoto more than wide angle (this would be rare), then indeed a 28-200 could make sense as a primary lens, I'll acknowledge.

That's really the biggest issue if you are going to take focal length into account is your shooting habits (cost might be an even bigger isue for some of us). a 18-55mm would be mostly useless (not saying there might not be some circumstances) for a wildlife shooters that shoots mostly birds. Something in the 300-500mm range might be better but that would be worthless to someone shooting people in confines spaces. Obviously lenses with greater range like 18-250mm or 50-500mm would server best as all around lenses for every circumstance but some of us can not afford them. 28-200's are very common with a lot of used ones floating around so they are available cheaper. Honestly I suspect that the wide availability of the older versions drive down the price of the newer versions too, especially with lenses like the tamron where there are several versions and not that good of information on how many there are, what the differences are etc. I haven't been buying and looking into buying 28-200mm lenses because I thought it was the best focal range. I have been doing it because its the best focal range for an all around lens that can be gotten on a tight budget.

On a side note, I rarely use my 18-55mm. I use 35-70, 28-70, 28-90 etc lenses all the time. Its rare that I have to have wider though there is the occasional instance where I back into a wall and wish I did have wider. When I have taken my 18-55mm its not occasional that I have wanted longer, its frequent but that is with my personal shooting habits.

Like magkelly said, if it is the newest version 60$ is a steal. For the older versions like the 271 and 571 its a decent enough price (I wouldn't pay much more as you would be getting into the range where you could get an ex or ex+ one from keh with a 6 month warranty). Bargain grade seem to go for 40-50$ on keh (remember to add shipping to that though). Those keh prices are for the older versions by the way.

[ripit]

A DA50-200 or Tamron 70-300 would make far mpre sense to me, and if they are slightly more expensive, it would be worth it to me.

I probably discount this focal range when considering new purchases without thinking about it as I already have auto focus 80-200, 100-300 and 70-300 lenses bought before I had kids, when my wife worked, and I could afford to just go spend 100-200$ on an auto focus lens without saving for it. Having something in that range is nice to have if you do outdoor shooting that would use the longer focal range. Honestly a 18-300mm would be even better for an all in one if there is a good one but I suspect it would not be a budget lens.

[Marc Sabatella]

That's really the biggest issue if you are going to take focal length into account is your shooting habits (cost might be an even bigger isue for some of us). a 18-55mm would be mostly useless (not saying there might not be some circumstances) for a wildlife shooters that shoots mostly birds.

Well, sure. But if you're primarily shooting wildlife, the question is, wouldn't you be better served with a lens that is actually optimized for good telephoto performance, like a 70-300? That in conjunction with the 18-55 seems a far smarter choice to me than a 28-200 in conjunction with the 18-55 - again, on the assumption that the buyer is like most people and actually does shoot wide angle more than rarely.

[ripit]

Well, sure. But if you're primarily shooting wildlife, the question is, wouldn't you be better served with a lens that is actually optimized for good telephoto performance, like a 70-300? That in conjunction with the 18-55 seems a far smarter choice to me than a 28-200 in conjunction with the 18-55 - again, on the assumption that the buyer is like most people and actually does shoot wide angle more than rarely.

Some might like the extra reach of a 500mm but personally I have used my 70-300mm substantially more than my 500mm. I just figured some might be able to use the extra reach. The 18-55mm and a 70-300mm would be a good combination too, but if I were in a situation where I only wanted to carry one lens, the 28-200 might serve better in more confined spaces (a small park or more confined outdoor activity), while perhaps the 70-300mm might serve better in wide open areas. Personally, I use my 28-90mm and similar lenses (35-70mm etc) substantially more than my 18-55mm. Thats just my personal shooting habits though. I think I might like to zoom in on the subject a bit more and take in the whole scene a bit less. If I wanted to carry a couple of lenses I would be more likely to carry a 28-90mm and a 70-300mm than an 18-55mm and a 70-300mm. Budget has of course influenced my lens choices heavily though.

[Peter Anson]

I bought one of the 62mm macro versions not long after I bought the K100DS with 18-55. That's nearly 4 years ago. The price was right and I was off for a holiday. The two lenses served me well enough for that few weeks. I still use the 18-55 sometimes, but the Tamron sees no action. It's OK for the price and was useful in an ordinary sort of way. Not long after that holiday I became interested in M primes and now with a complete kit I doubt that I'll ever use an auto zoom again. Suppose it might be time to consider selling the zooms. It's not a bad lens and if it suits your budget and it's what you think you need, buy it. $60 is a good price for it.

[pacerr]

. . . wouldn't you be better served with a lens that is actually optimized for good telephoto performance, like a 70-300?

Marc's comments caused me to consider the regional aspect of lens choices. I spent 40+ years in the Denver, CO, Billings, MT and Puget Sound areas and never owned a lens wider than 50mm. I considered an 85/1.8 "normal" on a Spotmatic.

Two years ago I moved east of the Mississippi River and now I have a Tammy 10-24mm and a DA 16-45 (but still not "seeing" well with 'em) and some MF 24/28/35mm's and am trying to learn to use the 200-500mm range effectively at less than 100 yds.

It's interesting how regional geography has changed my perception of lens utility.

H2

[ClinchShots]

Tamron AF Aspherical LD 28 200mm F 3 8 5 6 If Lens for Pentax AF 4960371002712 | eBay

just bought one for 60 shipped

hope it suits me well

[ripit]

This is kind of an old thread. That lens became my white whale for a little while. I bid low and lost. I bid medium and lost. I got mad and bid high and lost. I think at one point I was bidding closer to $100 and still lost. Keh seemed to always have some version of it (including now) except when I had the money to buy. I finally caught it when keh had a few promaster versions and if I recall, they were pretty cheap (maybe $45-55). I got paid the next day, and of course, the next day they were gone. Didn't see another at keh for a month or two.

I finally won one and won it cheap. Wouldn't you know, it was broken. What was even more annoying is I do not think it was shipped broken. It was shipped in a box just big enough for it with no padding (found a piece of plastic broken off, presumably from inside the lens in the box and it didn't have infinity focus the full range). The return dragged out forever (took the seller a week each time to respond working out the details for return with problem after problem). He refunded and kept telling me he would send a shipping label for return but never did (its still sitting in a box ready to ship back somewhere, I'm not even sure where its at anymore). It was one of the older 72mm versions. From what I recall (I only briefly used it before realizing it was broken as I suspected from the piece of plastic), optically it was decent. I was happy with the image quality it produced which made it even more irritating it was broken.

I basically said, I'm buying one now no mater what it costs. I found an auction for the xr version (newer 62mm version), a pentax f 100-300mm and a film camera. I put in a really high bid and won it for $120. Thats not bad as the f 100-300mm is probably worth as much as the tamron but I already had a couple of decent enough af 300mm zooms. I really had no need for the 100-300mm (and still use my sigma 75-300mm more).

The tamron 28-200mm xr has basically become my carry lens and I use it all the time (more than any other lens I own). If I'm not lugging around a bag with extra lenses, then I'm probably using the tamron. I liked it enough I eventually bought another one for the kids (that one was the 62mm xr version too). I got it cheap (maybe $40-50). It was not in as near good of shape (much lower serial number, older lens and looked fairly heavily used and worn though fully functional). Sure you can get something better and or more versatile if you want to spend a lot more money but for the cost, these are very nice lenses (the version I have anyway). Being a budget lens hasn't stopped it from getting me many good shots and I'm very happy with the image quality for what it is (a budget lens).

[thornburg]

I've owned about 8 or so 28-200s in various mounts. Used them on both film and digital cameras.

They're surprisingly decent. My favorite was a Tamron with 72mm front element. I'm not sure exactly which model it was. I sold it to a friend, and then it was destroyed by water damage when there was a fire at his apartment complex.

My daughter regularly gets good pics with a Promaster with 62mm front element. Not sure who manufactured it.

I owned a Tokina 35-300 for a few days. It was AWFUL. Among the worst lenses I have ever owned. It was Minolta/Alpha mount, not sure if they made it in K mount.

The more modern 18-200 types are a bit more versatile, but more expensive. Interestingly, prices on them are falling. They could become the new sub-$100 general purpose lens.

[tomwil]

The more modern 18-200 types are a bit more versatile, but more expensive. Interestingly, prices on them are falling. They could become the new sub-$100 general purpose lens.

There were a few of the Tamron/Promaster 18-200mm Pentax mounts going for $75 on eBay within the last couple of weeks. But I think the Tamron 18-200mm is only good for APS-C, whereas the Tamron 28-200mm covers 35mm full-frame. Am I right?

[thornburg]

There were a few of the Tamron/Promaster 18-200mm Pentax mounts going for $75 on eBay within the last couple of weeks. But I think the Tamron 18-200mm is only good for APS-C, whereas the Tamron 28-200mm covers 35mm full-frame. Am I right?

Yes, the various 18-200's are APS-C while the 28-200's are FF.

Unless you shoot film, there's not much reason to care. If you're buying a lens for less than $100, the odds are you aren't planning on mounting it on a $2000-$5000 camera. (Maybe if it's an old manual focus prime.)

EDIT: Also, while a lot of these FF 28-200's are decent on APS-C, I suspect the distortion and sharpness are much worse in the edges, so you may not want to use them on film.

[ripit]

It does look like the tamron 18-200mm will be a $100 or a bit under lens now. Amazon price tracker shows it selling new for $300 new for 5+ years but in the earlier part of this year it dropped to $200 and stayed there. B&h has them for $200 + $20 rebate. If you can get one new with warrenty, caps, hood etc. from a reputable dealer for $180, I can certainly see used ones going for under $100. There are a handful of recent ended auctions on ebay where the sold in the $100 or just under range (used). That includes bin from actual camera shops like pacific rim.

I did some research on the different models a while back. There are at least 3 different 72mm models plus an adaptall model. I can try and find some more info if anyone likes as I am going off memory (I could probably find some info on some of my old posts here).

The first had poor macro capability and had a factory macro filter available. The second had improved macro ability and the pentax brand 28-200mm is this one. The promaster is available in this one. I have not found conclusively if the third is better than the second, but both are supposed to be better than the first. The promaster is avalabe in the third (not sure if there are pentax brand versions of the third). I think the second and third may have been branded super and super 2. There are diffrent model numbers for silver or black (those are not additional versions, just different color). The second and third look very different (one is more square, one more rounded but I can not recall which is which). They all have different model numbers but the looks might help tell the pentax/promaster branded ones apart.

The first 62mm version is the xr (if). I think I like these better due to the reduced size, weight and lighter, easier feeling handling. I do not know personally if they are better optically than the older ones. Compared to the ones I used, they are as good but different, maybe better but not by a huge margin but then again, I had very little use with the older version. Its almost like the new had a cleaner image a bit (maybe sharper a little), but the older one had a warmer, more contrasty image that had its own merits.

The second 62mm version is the xr di. Going off memory, it is similar if not identical to the xr (if) in size, weight, design, optical formula etc (don't quote me on that) except it has coatings optimized for digital sensors. It is a current model lens.

All of the above are full frame lenses. All are 28-200mm. The promaster 28-200mm with a 62mm very much seems to be a tamron just like the older promasters are. The one in the lens database here is even pictured with a tamron ad03 lens hood (with the tamron part number on it). There is no 18-200mm full frame xr or xr di.

The xr di 2 is an apsc size lens designed for crop sensor digital cameras. If I'm not mistaken, the full frame ones retailer for about $400 while the xr di 2 retailed for about $300 (and it seems now, possibly $200, at least thats what they are selling for). I gather they are cheaper as they have smaller cheaper glass not being full frame. I have no idea how they compare to the full frame ones.

There is also an xr di 3, that is optimized for mirrorless cameras. I don't really know anything about those.

I hope some of that is helpful.

[ripit]

Yes, the various 18-200's are APS-C while the 28-200's are FF.

Unless you shoot film, there's not much reason to care. If you're buying a lens for less than $100, the odds are you aren't planning on mounting it on a $2000-$5000 camera. (Maybe if it's an old manual focus prime.)

EDIT: Also, while a lot of these FF 28-200's are decent on APS-C, I suspect the distortion and sharpness are much worse in the edges, so you may not want to use them on film.

I kind of wonder if the full frame ones would have better edge sharpness on a crop sensor as you are shooting through the middle of the glass?

[ripit]

I've owned about 8 or so 28-200s in various mounts. Used them on both film and digital cameras.

They're surprisingly decent. My favorite was a Tamron with 72mm front element. I'm not sure exactly which model it was. I sold it to a friend, and then it was destroyed by water damage when there was a fire at his apartment complex.

My daughter regularly gets good pics with a Promaster with 62mm front element. Not sure who manufactured it.

I owned a Tokina 35-300 for a few days. It was AWFUL. Among the worst lenses I have ever owned. It was Minolta/Alpha mount, not sure if they made it in K mount.

The more modern 18-200 types are a bit more versatile, but more expensive. Interestingly, prices on them are falling. They could become the new sub-$100 general purpose lens.

I'm pretty sure the promaster is a tamron as stated in my other post I just made. It is probably the same tamron xr (if) that I have two of. The 72mm version I had almost seems to have a better image in some ways, but not in others (more contrast but maybe a bit less sharp, but I only briefly used it). How would you compare the 72mm version that you had to your daughters 62mm version?