[Damian.T]

I currently have a 18-50mm, 10-20mm and 50-300mm lenses and whilst I'm out and about taking pics of Land Rovers in action for my magazine, there's situations when I really don't have time to change lenses and therefore I miss potentially great shots. So, I was thinking of a more flexible lens.

My question is, why would I want to go for the 18-200mm as opposed to the 18-270mm which would give me a better range?

Ta...

Damian

[oliver939]

not sure you can find a 18-270 with pentax mount (at least the last one from tamron is not available for pentax)

[audiobomber]

I currently have a 18-50mm, 10-20mm and 50-300mm lenses and whilst I'm out and about taking pics of Land Rovers in action for my magazine, there's situations when I really don't have time to change lenses and therefore I miss potentially great shots. So, I was thinking of a more flexible lens.

My question is, why would I want to go for the 18-200mm as opposed to the 18-270mm which would give me a better range?

Ta...

Damian

Your post is a little confusing Damian. Pentax doesn't make an 18-50 or a 50-500. I assume you mean the 18-55 and 55-300mm? Unfortunately there is no 18-270 available in Pentax mount. Tamron used to provide an 18-250, and Pentax sold the same lens with different cosmetics, but they are now discontinued, therefore only available used. There is a current Sigma 18-250mm.

It is pretty universally accepted that the 18-200 lenses by Sigma and Tamron are a little weaker optically than the newer 18-250mm designs. Whether they meet any given person's standards is a personal decision. I stopped using the 18-250 because it was a bit disappointing in difficult conditions. I much prefer the 55-300 as a telephoto, it has longer range, better colour and contrast, slightly sharper and far less purple fringing. Note that the superzooms are internal focus lenses. There are advantages to IF, but the disadvantage is that the lens only reaches its stated focal length at infinity. I compared my Pentax 18-250 to my 55-300 and found for example that at 30 feet subject distance, the 18-250 at 250mm had a field of view of about 200mm. That makes quite a difference for birding.

Have you considered adding a second body instead of a superzoom? You could mount the 18-55 on one body and the 55-300 on the other. Since you're mostly in a vehicle, it should be easy to pack both?

[maxfield_photo]

Neither one is a terribly good option IMO. You're talking about an 11X and a 15X zoom, it's difficult to make quality optics to cover such a large range. What you'll lose in the trade-off for convenience is image quality and shutter speed, the former of which is important if you're printing your work in magazines, and the latter if you're capturing moving subjects. I have a 50-300 and for me the IQ just doesn't cut it, maybe for internet, but not for print, a wider zoom range would be even worse. Maybe think about picking up a second body instead. Put your 50-300 on a tripod, and you can shoot the other hand-held.

[crewl1]

The Pentax or Tamron 18-250 is generally regarded as a better lens than the 18-200 Tamron.
See the lens database for the reviews.

[Damian.T]

Your post is a little confusing Damian. Pentax doesn't make an 18-50 or a 50-500. I assume you mean the 18-55 and 55-300mm? Unfortunately there is no 18-270 available in Pentax mount. Tamron used to provide an 18-250, and Pentax sold the same lens with different cosmetics, but they are now discontinued, therefore only available used. There is a current Sigma 18-250mm.

It is pretty universally accepted that the 18-200 lenses by Sigma and Tamron are a little weaker optically than the newer 18-250mm designs. Whether they meet any given person's standards is a personal decision. I stopped using the 18-250 because it was a bit disappointing in difficult conditions. I much prefer the 55-300 as a telephoto, it has longer range, better colour and contrast, slightly sharper and far less purple fringing. Note that the superzooms are internal focus lenses. There are advantages to IF, but the disadvantage is that the lens only reaches its stated focal length at infinity. I compared my Pentax 18-250 to my 55-300 and found for example that at 30 feet subject distance, the 18-250 at 250mm had a field of view of about 200mm. That makes quite a difference for birding.

Have you considered adding a second body instead of a superzoom? You could mount the 18-55 on one body and the 55-300 on the other. Since you're mostly in a vehicle, it should be easy to pack both?

Apologies for the confusion, I did indeed mean 18-55 and 55-300mm.

Having another body is actually a very good idea (and possibly cheaper) and an alternative that I hadn't actually considered! Going away now to check eBlag and to slap myself on the back of the head!

Thanks!

[RioRico]

Having another body is actually a very good idea (and possibly cheaper) and an alternative that I hadn't actually considered! Going away now to check eBlag and to slap myself on the back of the head!

Now there's a plan! [/me slaps own head in emulation.] Basically the decent options are (in decending order of cost) a Bigma 50-500; a used DA18-250 or its Tamron twin; or a backup body. The 18-250 on your current body would give the lightest package; another body would giver a bit more flexibility and reach.

[Damian.T]

Hmmm, been window shopping this week and it's cheaper for me to buy a Kr that I can put my 10-20mm and keep my K20 for the 55-300mm than buy a Sigma 18-250mm lens!

It's an obvious decision especially as I'm working in crappie environments which can lead to potential camera damage! But I still want a 18-250mm!!

[arv]

New version of Sigma 18 - 200mm is comming, FLD, HSM and without OS, thus price might be cheaper. If not in rush, wait a little. Here are first official samples (on SD 1).

A.