18-250 question

gokenin · 01-02-2008, 09:47 PM

I was wondering do people use this as there everyday lens or is it used as a travel lens? I am curious simply because I have looked at it but really feel that I would use it for travel since it covers the range in a single lens that I now cover with three. Does it make sense to buy a lens for easy of travel only?

**Mallee Boy** · 01-02-2008, 09:56 PM

chuckle chuckle...asking myself the same question.
I think the answer is yes. The least hassle free trip I did was with my 18-125, and the only shots I missed (of a grizzly) was when I was frantically trying to change over to the 100-300. By the time I got the job done the bear had moved away, so I was no better off than if I had banged away at 125mm. The 250 would certainly overcome that.

Is it a financially sound decision to buy a lens for 'just' travel..?:ugh: thats an individual call.

jgredline · 01-02-2008, 10:53 PM

The Tamron Lens is so good, that It is on one of my bodies 80% of the time.

123K10D · 01-02-2008, 11:08 PM

shots missed while changing lenses... not any more.

the tamron 18-250 made me -

sell my primes
stop before ordering the da* twins

it wasn't the money, it was the convenience, combined with very nice IQ.

for me, to get top value from this lens, i do this:

bokeh? get closer & go longer (70 to 100mm for portraits is great)
extra sharpness? stop her down. though the sharpness wide open (of my copy at least) is WAY better than what photozone.de got - and close enough for me to the primes i've owned, not to be an issue
high contrast scenes (ie likely CA issues)? stay between 30 and 100mm if it's critical - then no pp required.

for me, all i need is what i already have: k10d, d-bg2 grip, tamron 18-250, couple of 8 gig fast cards, and a af360fgz and a few tripods.

the da* and classic prime glass are great fun, but the framing options the range of the tamron gives you destroys any advantage of the marginally higher iq of the top glass. in prints, and with quality pp, the sharpness difference doesn't exist, even with a microscope - so i got over it :-)

i guarantee that any pro (like ben kanarek) could get exactly the same income shooting this lens, and only this lens for the rest of his career. it's what you do with it, and wasting time and effort on primes means less time to enjoy capturing the moment - though... god... i'd love a voigtlander 40mm pancake... hey, i'm human

Chako · 01-03-2008, 05:34 AM

I have the Pentax version. Both lenses are phenomenal. I got mine as a gift and was unsure if I would ever use such a lens, but I must say, my opinion of the glass quickly changed once I started to take photos with it.

For example, take a look at the top example of a series of photos I posted in the photo section. I shot this directly including the bright sun on the wide end. I was curious to see how much flare I was going to get.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/17500-another-outing-pentax-18-250-a.html

So yes, it is now my everyday walkabout lens.

gokenin · 01-03-2008, 06:31 AM

ok now the next question for the people that are using it as your everyday lens did you get rid of your other glass or did you keep it ? have to decide whether now to get the 18-250 and keep what i have to compliment it or keep everything else add the 16-45 and get the 18-250 for travel but if you only use one megazoom dont you feel that your slr has become a very good P/S?

TaoMaas · 01-03-2008, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by gokenin

...if you only use one megazoom dont you feel that your slr has become a very good P/S?

That's what I keep wondering, too. Why not go with a really good bridge camera?

Snowcat · 01-03-2008, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

That's what I keep wondering, too. Why not go with a really good bridge camera?

Because even best bridge cameras don't give you the quality of a good dslr. With *best* brigde cameras you can't shoot high ISO (on a small sensor only the lowest ISO is usable), you can't shoot REAL macro, you can't shoot fast series, AF is always slow, detailes are always low, well... Look at every "advanced" side and you'll get another "you can't".

So people like me, who came to the edge of opprtunities with their brigde cameras move to DSLRs. But still I want one do-it-ALSMOST-all lens, it's handy. Plus a macro lens and 500mm for birds lol.

Chako · 01-03-2008, 08:05 AM

No, I still have all my lenses. But then I tend to be a packrat. I still have my old kit from the late 80s.

The major advantage to me is that I can go and walk around without having to carry different lenses. I rarely switch a lens in the field anyways, that being a good way to keep in camera dust down in my opinion. The range on this lens is perfect for what I use it for. Not to mention that the optics are fantastic.

I will still use my other lenses. I do have the 50-200 and 16-45. I will take them out for specific photo jaunts. They won't be used as much, but then, they still have qualities that I like, and I have already paid for them..so they owe me nothing.

As for a bridge camera...I have one of those also in the Canon S5 IS. That does another specific job. Can it compete with a DSLR in image quality. Not exactly. I am a firm believer in having specific tools for specific jobs. Just because I use the DA 18-250mm lens does not mean I have to ditch everything else.

Not Registered · 01-03-2008, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by gokenin

ok now the next question for the people that are using it as your everyday lens did you get rid of your other glass or did you keep it ? have to decide whether now to get the 18-250 and keep what i have to compliment it or keep everything else add the 16-45 and get the 18-250 for travel but if you only use one megazoom dont you feel that your slr has become a very good P/S?

I use it as travel lens. I think that it is an excellent travel lens but has some limitations to be used as everyday lens. (my copy) It is kind of soft on the long end when infinity focus and it has quite a bit of barrel distortion and vigneting on the widest end. On the other side is really versatile and works surprisingly well for close ups. It has the "problem" that covers a wide range so you can tend to not use other better lenses just for laziness.

Fl_Gulfer · 01-03-2008, 03:49 PM

I have a 10x Oly C-750 Ultra Zoom Point & Shoot I payed over 500 for about 4 years ago and it's not even close to the PQ as my K100 and the Tamron 18-250. I gave the Oly to the wife and she loves having her own camera to play with.

**Sailor** · 01-03-2008, 08:36 PM

Santa brought me the Pentax version of the 18-250 for Christmas, and it's a far better performer than I expected. Based on what I've seen so far, it could make my DA 16-45 and DA 50-200 redundant.

Nevertheless, it's not an all purpose lens; for one thing - it's too slow for many applications. Also, the "super zoom" is heavier than my trio of DA "pancakes" combined, autofocuses relatively slowly in many instances, and - I believe - doesn't reach the image quality (at least in prints) of my pancakes and other primes. It close focuses pretty impressively but it can't match my DFA 100 in this regard.

I'm fortunate to have my new 18-250, but I expect I'll continue to use my primes as regularly as before.

Jer

stewart_photo · 01-03-2008, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

That's what I keep wondering, too. Why not go with a really good bridge camera?

You seem to be focusing solely on the lens when deciding the camera. I can certainly understand why one might chose a DSLR even with a single lens. As others have pointed out, a DSLR offers far more than just interchangable lenses. But, equally important, the user chose the particular lens, not the camera manufacturer as is the case with bridge cameras. And that user has the option to choose some other lens in the future, which is also not the case with bridge cameras. In my opinion, that alone (choice now and in the future) is a pretty good reason to select a DLSR over a bridge camera.

stewart

jgredline · 01-03-2008, 09:55 PM

Having used p&s for most of the past 10 years, there is no way I can ever go back...
My last p&s was the Fuji s9100 and it was at the time the closest to an SLR that there was and after having dslr's for the past year, it is not even close....

However, I would like a p&s that will fit in my shirt pocket and considered the canon G9
But have decided to wait for the new sigma p&s ..
Sigma DP1: Digital Photography Review

Sigma - News

Fl_Gulfer · 01-03-2008, 10:23 PM

the Sigma DP-1 was suppose to be released last summer and it's still not on the market, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

View Poll Results: usage of 18-250
my everyday lens	39	39.00%
travel lens only	17	17.00%
prefer multiple lens always	44	44.00%
Voters: 100. You may not vote on this poll

01-02-2008, 09:47 PM	#1
gokenin Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: lowell,ma Posts: 1,899	18-250 question I was wondering do people use this as there everyday lens or is it used as a travel lens? I am curious simply because I have looked at it but really feel that I would use it for travel since it covers the range in a single lens that I now cover with three. Does it make sense to buy a lens for easy of travel only?

01-02-2008, 11:08 PM	#4
123K10D Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Toowoomba - Australia Posts: 110	shots missed while changing lenses... not any more. the tamron 18-250 made me - sell my primes stop before ordering the da* twins it wasn't the money, it was the convenience, combined with very nice IQ. for me, to get top value from this lens, i do this: bokeh? get closer & go longer (70 to 100mm for portraits is great) extra sharpness? stop her down. though the sharpness wide open (of my copy at least) is WAY better than what photozone.de got - and close enough for me to the primes i've owned, not to be an issue high contrast scenes (ie likely CA issues)? stay between 30 and 100mm if it's critical - then no pp required. for me, all i need is what i already have: k10d, d-bg2 grip, tamron 18-250, couple of 8 gig fast cards, and a af360fgz and a few tripods. the da* and classic prime glass are great fun, but the framing options the range of the tamron gives you destroys any advantage of the marginally higher iq of the top glass. in prints, and with quality pp, the sharpness difference doesn't exist, even with a microscope - so i got over it :-) i guarantee that any pro (like ben kanarek) could get exactly the same income shooting this lens, and only this lens for the rest of his career. it's what you do with it, and wasting time and effort on primes means less time to enjoy capturing the moment - though... god... i'd love a voigtlander 40mm pancake... hey, i'm human

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Magnification Question: Reversed 50mm vs. Raynox 250	twokatmew	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	07-18-2010 04:15 PM
pentax 18-250 question	diego604	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	12-10-2009 01:57 PM
1 more 18-250 question	dafiryde	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	06-05-2009 05:50 PM
Another 18-250 question, sorry !!	simonkit	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	12-24-2007 10:52 AM
Tamron18-250 or Sigma17-70 (Range or Speed thats the question)	Salminus	Pentax DSLR Discussion	23	09-25-2007 11:45 PM

01-02-2008, 09:56 PM	#2
Mallee Boy Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,904	chuckle chuckle...asking myself the same question. I think the answer is yes. The least hassle free trip I did was with my 18-125, and the only shots I missed (of a grizzly) was when I was frantically trying to change over to the 100-300. By the time I got the job done the bear had moved away, so I was no better off than if I had banged away at 125mm. The 250 would certainly overcome that. Is it a financially sound decision to buy a lens for 'just' travel..?:ugh: thats an individual call.

01-02-2008, 10:53 PM	#3
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	The Tamron Lens is so good, that It is on one of my bodies 80% of the time.

01-03-2008, 05:34 AM	#5
Chako Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ont, Canada. Posts: 563	I have the Pentax version. Both lenses are phenomenal. I got mine as a gift and was unsure if I would ever use such a lens, but I must say, my opinion of the glass quickly changed once I started to take photos with it. For example, take a look at the top example of a series of photos I posted in the photo section. I shot this directly including the bright sun on the wide end. I was curious to see how much flare I was going to get. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/17500-another-outing-pentax-18-250-a.html So yes, it is now my everyday walkabout lens.

01-03-2008, 06:31 AM	#6
gokenin Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: lowell,ma Posts: 1,899 Original Poster	ok now the next question for the people that are using it as your everyday lens did you get rid of your other glass or did you keep it ? have to decide whether now to get the 18-250 and keep what i have to compliment it or keep everything else add the 16-45 and get the 18-250 for travel but if you only use one megazoom dont you feel that your slr has become a very good P/S?

01-03-2008, 06:43 AM	#7
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by gokenin ...if you only use one megazoom dont you feel that your slr has become a very good P/S? That's what I keep wondering, too. Why not go with a really good bridge camera?

01-03-2008, 08:04 AM	#8
Snowcat Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 239	Originally posted by TaoMaas That's what I keep wondering, too. Why not go with a really good bridge camera? Because even best bridge cameras don't give you the quality of a good dslr. With best brigde cameras you can't shoot high ISO (on a small sensor only the lowest ISO is usable), you can't shoot REAL macro, you can't shoot fast series, AF is always slow, detailes are always low, well... Look at every "advanced" side and you'll get another "you can't". So people like me, who came to the edge of opprtunities with their brigde cameras move to DSLRs. But still I want one do-it-ALSMOST-all lens, it's handy. Plus a macro lens and 500mm for birds lol.

01-03-2008, 08:05 AM	#9
Chako Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ont, Canada. Posts: 563	No, I still have all my lenses. But then I tend to be a packrat. I still have my old kit from the late 80s. The major advantage to me is that I can go and walk around without having to carry different lenses. I rarely switch a lens in the field anyways, that being a good way to keep in camera dust down in my opinion. The range on this lens is perfect for what I use it for. Not to mention that the optics are fantastic. I will still use my other lenses. I do have the 50-200 and 16-45. I will take them out for specific photo jaunts. They won't be used as much, but then, they still have qualities that I like, and I have already paid for them..so they owe me nothing. As for a bridge camera...I have one of those also in the Canon S5 IS. That does another specific job. Can it compete with a DSLR in image quality. Not exactly. I am a firm believer in having specific tools for specific jobs. Just because I use the DA 18-250mm lens does not mean I have to ditch everything else.

01-03-2008, 09:52 AM	#10
Not Registered Guest	Originally posted by gokenin ok now the next question for the people that are using it as your everyday lens did you get rid of your other glass or did you keep it ? have to decide whether now to get the 18-250 and keep what i have to compliment it or keep everything else add the 16-45 and get the 18-250 for travel but if you only use one megazoom dont you feel that your slr has become a very good P/S? I use it as travel lens. I think that it is an excellent travel lens but has some limitations to be used as everyday lens. (my copy) It is kind of soft on the long end when infinity focus and it has quite a bit of barrel distortion and vigneting on the widest end. On the other side is really versatile and works surprisingly well for close ups. It has the "problem" that covers a wide range so you can tend to not use other better lenses just for laziness.

01-03-2008, 03:49 PM	#11
Fl_Gulfer Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Gulfer Photos: Albums Posts: 3,054	I have a 10x Oly C-750 Ultra Zoom Point & Shoot I payed over 500 for about 4 years ago and it's not even close to the PQ as my K100 and the Tamron 18-250. I gave the Oly to the wife and she loves having her own camera to play with.

01-03-2008, 08:36 PM	#12
Sailor Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Coastal Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 26,205	Santa brought me the Pentax version of the 18-250 for Christmas, and it's a far better performer than I expected. Based on what I've seen so far, it could make my DA 16-45 and DA 50-200 redundant. Nevertheless, it's not an all purpose lens; for one thing - it's too slow for many applications. Also, the "super zoom" is heavier than my trio of DA "pancakes" combined, autofocuses relatively slowly in many instances, and - I believe - doesn't reach the image quality (at least in prints) of my pancakes and other primes. It close focuses pretty impressively but it can't match my DFA 100 in this regard. I'm fortunate to have my new 18-250, but I expect I'll continue to use my primes as regularly as before. Jer

01-03-2008, 09:39 PM	#13
stewart_photo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Heidelberg, Germany Posts: 1,864	Originally posted by TaoMaas That's what I keep wondering, too. Why not go with a really good bridge camera? You seem to be focusing solely on the lens when deciding the camera. I can certainly understand why one might chose a DSLR even with a single lens. As others have pointed out, a DSLR offers far more than just interchangable lenses. But, equally important, the user chose the particular lens, not the camera manufacturer as is the case with bridge cameras. And that user has the option to choose some other lens in the future, which is also not the case with bridge cameras. In my opinion, that alone (choice now and in the future) is a pretty good reason to select a DLSR over a bridge camera. stewart

01-03-2008, 09:55 PM	#14
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Having used p&s for most of the past 10 years, there is no way I can ever go back... My last p&s was the Fuji s9100 and it was at the time the closest to an SLR that there was and after having dslr's for the past year, it is not even close.... However, I would like a p&s that will fit in my shirt pocket and considered the canon G9 But have decided to wait for the new sigma p&s .. Sigma DP1: Digital Photography Review Sigma - News

01-03-2008, 10:23 PM	#15
Fl_Gulfer Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Gulfer Photos: Albums Posts: 3,054	the Sigma DP-1 was suppose to be released last summer and it's still not on the market, so I wouldn't hold my breath.