[GibbyTheMole]

OK... So I have just acquired this lens, which I haven't even had a chance to test yet: Tamron 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 AF XR Di II LD Aspherical IF Macro Lens Reviews - Tamron Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

How much better is the fabled 18-250? Is it worth selling this AND my Tammy 28-300 AND adding a up to $100 to get the 18-250? Is the quality of the 18-250 that much better than either of the Tamrons I already have?

I already have the Pentax DA 18-55 and DA-L 55-300.

Cheers,
Bobbo :-)

[jimr-pdx]

In order of my preference, with Sony and Pentax experience combined: Sigma 18-200, Tam 18-250, Tam 18-200. None of my copies were bad to my eye. The Tam 250 was quite good all the way out on my alpha A200, but I preferred the compact size and no creep the Sigma gave me so I let the Tam go. I had the T18-200 with a k200d and it was a nice team, but I have not tried any of these with a 16Mpxl camera. I keep wanting another copy of the S18-200 but want to wait for the Pentax DA to be announced.

[Snajder]

18-250! I had the Sigma 70-300 DG OS and a 18-200, the 18-250 outperformed both.. (on KX)

[GibbyTheMole]

The general idea is that the 18-250 is better than the other two. What I need to know is how much better? Is it just a little better, or angels singing "Messiah" better? And what's the sweet spot of the focal range?

[hcc]

You should read the following independent reviews:

Tamron Lens: Zooms - Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical IF Macro AF (Tested) - SLRgear.com! "The 18-250mm beat its 18-200mm predecessor all hollow when it came to sharpness. Wide open, the 18-250 was much better behaved, and sharpness was markedly better across the board. [...] Looking mainly at the differences in sharpness between the two lenses, the 18-250mm is a significantly better optic, easily justifying the roughly $100 difference in street price between them."

Tamron AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical [IF] macro (Canon) - Review / Test Report "Early user comments already suggested that new Tamron AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical [IF] macro does not only offer a longer range but also a higher quality over the old Tamron AF 18-200mm XR and the lab results confirm these impressions. The results may not touch the sky but the new AF 18-250mm delivers a very solid performance for most of the range."

Pentax SMC DA 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 ED AL [IF] - Review / Lab Test Report "The Pentax SMC DA 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 ED AL [IF] is a worthy representative of its species. Naturally it is not comparable to more specialized zoom lenses, not to mention fix-focals, but within its scope it does a good job."

There is general consensus among Pentaxians that the Tamron/DA18-250mm is great as an all-around lens. Its only downfall is that the lens is no longer manufactured, but you can find it on the 2nd hand market readily (e.g keh.com, Adorama used, PF marketplace).

Go for the 18-250mm if you can.

Hope that the comment wil help.

[GibbyTheMole]

hcc: Yep. Thanks! - Bob :-)

[123jippo]

I have understood from many test that i have seen in past years like this about superzooms:
-Best IQ is Nikon 18-200

-Next very near is both Tamrons 18-270

-Then IQ little below these are both Sigma and Tamron 18-250

-IQ worst clearly than mentioned above are both sigma&tamron 18-200


Yes i am so much waiting new coming DA superzoom WR to solve this issue for Pentax

[rawr]

Aww, the Tamron 18-200 isn't as bad as people say. Maybe I am just lucky in getting a good copy or something of the lens but it does it's job quite well for me. So I feel that any upgrade to the Tammy 18-250 would only deliver incremental benefits

Plus now that DxO Optics Pro has a lens module for the Tamron 18-200 on Pentax, the lens performs even better.

[GibbyTheMole]

Aww, the Tamron 18-200 isn't as bad as people say. Maybe I am just lucky in getting a good copy or something of the lens but it does it's job quite well for me. So I feel that any upgrade to the Tammy 18-250 would only deliver incremental benefits

Actually, I tested my copy of the Tamron 18-200 yesterday. It's surprisingly decent from about 35mm up. Below 35mm it becomes downright awful (especially at 18mm) unless you stop it down to f11.

My Tamron 185D 28-300 is very close to the 18-200 in the "good zone", except it's MUCH better at the wide end than the 18-200, and it has more tele reach. So the 28-300 is the one I'm keeping. Stop it down a little and it ain't half bad.

I'll probably pick up an 18-250 someday when I get more dough, but I've been thinking about it & since I regard any superzoom as a compromise lens for the sake of convenience over IQ, I can probably wait a little while. I really only use a superzoom for stuff like family get-togethers and something to take when I travel light, so dropping $350 for something that's only gonna get occasional use when my 28-300 is decent already... meh.

[GibbyTheMole]

maybe i also get 28-300 if it is better...is it better that DA 55-300??

Nope. It's not even close. The DA or DA-L 55-300 is MUCH better than the 28-300, or the 18-200. You can get some good images out of the 28-300 if you stop it down, but the 55-300 positively smokes it, especially at the long end.

Plus, since the 55-300 is not internal focus, it actually goes out to 300mm at all distances from the subject. With the 28-300, at 300mm at a distance of 10 or 15 feet from the subject, it's equivalent to about a 190mm lens.

If it's good telephoto image quality you want, the 55-300 is the way to go.

[Scorpion]

Hi , I have a Tamron 18-200. I find that at the 200 setting, the image is not the same as my other 200mm lenses. The actual lens barrel doesn't extend in a linear way, the setting from 135 - 200 not giving the image size you would expect. Does anyone else find this.

I do have a slight problem with a loose zoom ring, giving annoying backlash. I beleive that there are screws that have worked loose, and I am concerned that the mechanism will jam or get damaged. I am on the lookout for a workshop manual, does anyone know where I could download one.

Aprt from these problems I am very pleased with the lens, but if I could afford it I would like to get the 18-250 version.

I must apologise if I have posted this in the wrong place, but I havent used the site much. and I am still finding my way around.