[Blue]

Do you mean that the Tamron is better then the Pentax tele-zooms mentioned, or that there are multiple versions of the Tamron?
. . .

There are 2 different Tamron 70-300mm that are available. One is the Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD 1:2 Auto Focus Macro and the other is the Tamron 75-300mm f/4-5.6 LD 1:3.7 AF Macro and sell for around $159 and $129 respectively. If you go with a Tamron, get the first one.

[TourDeForce]

Do you mean that the Tamron is better then the Pentax tele-zooms mentioned, or that there are multiple versions of the Tamron?

I think I'm currently leaning towards possibly picking up the DA 50-200 cheaply, and then maybe saving towards a Sigma 10-20 or something.

I'll also continue to evaluate the kit lens as I use it to decide whether I might eventually want to replace it with something like the Sigma 17-70.

That is a wise choice. Pentax is soon to release their 17-70mm that will have SDM, which your K200D will support. I would have waited too, but my K100 will not support SDM, so I got the Sigma as my walkaround lens. Very good hardware & I'm happy with it. I might have gone with the Sigma anyway because of better low light capability of 2.8.

I've studied some of the pictures taken by the DA 50-200 and find that they lack the IQ I have come to expect from a good quality lens. You may want to have a closer look at flikr photos taken with it & decide for yourself.

[KungPOW]

I was planning to upgrade my kit lens first, but then I went on a trip and found that I really needed a longer lens in my kit.

My top choices for the kit lens upgrade are:

Sigma 18-50 2.8 ex dc
Tamron 28-70 2.8 sp di
Pentax 16-50 DA* 2.8

But I am going to delay this purchase until I get a longer lens. I don't have $1100.00 to spend so my choices became:

Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 dg macro
Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO dg macro
Tamron 70-300 4-5.6 LD DI maro
Pentax 50-200 da
Pentax 55-300 da

After much deliberation, and far too many reviews, I am planning to get the Tamron 70-300 LD DI. It is the least expensive, and from the photos I have seen I think it outperforms all but the Pentax 55-300 (remember it is less then 1/2 the cost). The big negative for the Tamron is it can have strong CA (purple fringe). I was able to find examples online of this, and I was able to remove most of the CA with software. That sold me.

Here are some links to more info about the Tamron.

This is Hinman's blog. I hope he dosen't mind my posting a link here, but He is a GREAT resorce for technical stuff, and he takes VERY beautiful and inspirational photos. He has allot of examples with the Tamron. In his blog he gives reference to free software used to fix CA.

Tamron 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro Test Shots - Hin's Tech Corner

Here is the site that closed the deal in my mind to go with the Tamron:

TAMRON AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 LD DI MACRO lense test

The last photo (macro with coins) shows bad CA. It was this photo that I used to test the post process fix for CA. I won't post my results here out of respect for copyright, but I was able to remove it.

Maybe my post is a little off the topic of the initial question, but it shows a change in my thinking about lenses.

Initially, I wanted to only buy the best, even if it meant waiting for the cash.

Now I plan to cover a wider range, and upgrade to the better glass later. I realised that a little post process work is better then missing a shot because I don't have the lens.

[TourDeForce]

Now I plan to cover a wider range, and upgrade to the better glass later. I realised that a little post process work is better then missing a shot because I don't have the lens.

Congratulations! You Sir, get it.

There is plenty of evidence out there to point out that the most expensive glass isn't what makes the pictures - It's the photographer. Even cheap lenses have their sweet spot, so use your equipment as required.

[deudeu]

Or there is a nice looking SMC-A 20mm f2.8 on Ebay, which I would make mine if i wasn't about to buy a lens already!

[Mallee Boy]

Hi sewebster,
you are getting lots of good advice here, but going back to your original post and having a look at your photos, I think your own observations are correct.

A big trap in this game is go and drop hard earned $$ on ordinary glass, and then end up having a large collection of ordinary glass .......yes, that is personal experience talking. That is not to criticise a lot of the glass out there, but there is definatley a better & best standard here.

I have just bought myself the FA 43ltd and DA 14mm. The 43 is simply superb.
My hiking kit from now on will be the DA 14, FA 43 & DFA 100mm....once I get over next weeks knee surgery and get back out there again!!!
Good Luck.
Grant

[axl]

welcome to the forums.
If you shoot on wide end of DA18-55 you may want to check Sigma 10-20 out.
BR

[Rollei35]

Personally, as someone who learned to take pictures way back in analog times 29 years ago, it would always be the 2/35.
Thats one quite compact, leightweight and fast lens which wont break the bank.
Replacing one zoom with another of almost the same range because of a "higher" quality is IMO not as necessary as having a fast prime at hand.0
You would be surprised what can be done with. After all, until 15 years ago nearly all SLR came with a bog standard 50mm lens and most people started their photographic experiences with one without being limited in any way.
The Pentax 2/35 is the reason I am keeping my trusty K100D Super, even though I went over to Olympus by selling my K10D.
Its nice to have a fast lens at hand for those times when a zoom doesnt cut it.

[reeftool]

I do much of the same type of photography, mostly outside and in the woods and on water. I am quite happy with the kit lens. I have a Sigma 70-300. Its a little heavy but can be handheld and is very inexpensive. I do want a wide angle, like the Sigma 10-20 or possibly the Pentax 10-17 fisheye but don't have the cash right now. I wish there was a single lens like a 10-500 but thats only a dream. My aging back can only handle so much. Most of my backpacking photos tend to be wide angle or the telephoto ( for wildlife, etc) and also some macro shots.

[Entropy]

Lenses I have:
DA 18-55 kit - Almost never gets used anymore, will likely be selling it with my K10D
DA 50-200 - Almost never gets used anymore, potentially will be selling it but may keep it because it is lightweight and small
Tamron 70-300 - One of my two most heavily-used lenses which essentially replaced the Pentax 50-200, I've had it a year and love it.
Sigma 17-70 - I've had this 4 months or so and love it, it has completely replaced the kit lens. (The weight savings of the Sigma vs. kit are not nearly as much as the Tamron vs. the DA 50-200)
Bigma (Sigma 50-500) - I've had this only a few days. I really like it so far, but it's big and heavy, so the Tamron will definately still see use.

If you want to upgrade from the kit lens, since it sounds like you've been maxing out both ends of the range, I'd definately suggest the Sigma 17-70. If you want some really long reach, the Tamron 70-300 is nice and cheap.

[sewebster]

Lenses I have:
The weight savings of the Sigma vs. kit are not nearly as much as the Tamron vs. the DA 50-200

18-55: 220g
17-70: 455g
savings with kit: 235g

50-200: 255g
70-300: 435g
savings with 50-200: 180g

Is this what you meant? Sounded like the opposite?

[TourDeForce]

I just took a look at your Original Post again. You use the full range of that kit lens fairly evenly, and your posts suggest the Sigma 17-70 DC macro or to be released Pentax 17-70 would be a good replacement for around the house.

Have there been situations where you could have used a much longer focal length? The 18-250 has a very good reputation and offers the wide angle as well as good telephoto capability. Based on your flikr pages, the 18-250 seems like an IDEAL fit for you. You may never take it off the camera as it will likely cover nearly every possible situation in your hiking treks.

Best wishes with whatever you choose.

[mike.hiran]

Have you thought of getting maybe a fast lens, like one of the fast 50's for low light indoor shots? Granted, you've said that outdoor landscaping shots are what you're taking the most of so perhaps this going the wrong direction. But I find that for get-togethers or candid shots indoors, a fast lens is invaluable.

My lens choices to start were generally inexpensive ones. I too wasn't sure whether I should go wide or long, so rather than spend a lot on an uncertainty, I bought relatively inexpensive lenses to see what my preferrences were. So I bough a Zenitar fisheye off of ebay and a tamron 70-300 macro off of Amazon, both for less than $300 combined. I discovered that I like wide and rarely need ultra zooms. I found that I like speed too, so I opted to cover the middle range with a faster zoom than the kit. But starting with some less expensive lenses allowed me to experiment without costing me a lot. And if you take care of your gear, getting 70% of your money back if/when you resell it should be fairly easy.

[sewebster]

vagrant: yeah, I'll likely pick up a fast 50 sometime "just because" but it probably isn't a high priority.

TourdeForce:

The 18-250 is definitely tempting as an "all the time" lens. Certainly carrying only one lens would be quite light. One downside I see is that it seems to have significantly worse performance than the kit at 18mm, which is my most often used focal length at the moment (photozone.de for instance reports more barrel distortion, vignetting and CA at 18). I also wonder whether I would be better off spending my money on something wider than 18 considering I like landscapes. Some of my local friends have suggested this as well.

[Confused]

Hi sewebster

Re your quandary:

I also wonder whether I would be better off spending my money on something wider than 18 considering I like landscapes.

I own both the Tamron 18-250mm AND the Sigma 10-20mm, so let me pass on my experience thus far. As far as landscape photography is concerned, unless there are strong vertical elements which appear at the edge of your image, such as buildings etc, then barrel distortion is unlikely to pose a visible problem under normal circumstances. If it really bothers you THAT much, such distortion can easily be removed via editing software at the PP stage !

I seem to recall reading previously about how the issue of CA has been successfully addressed in the case of Sigma's 10-20mm wide-zoom and this is pretty much borne-out by some of the amazing images I've seen of sunsets, which have been shot directly into the sun with outstanding results.

As an example, my wife & I visited the island of Sicily this springtime and it was a landscape photographers paradise. What you need to fully appreciate is that the extraordinary ability of the human eye to observe a panorama exceeds the capability of ANY lens to adequately resolve an identical scene in the same detail.

Comparing what I actually saw at the time with my naked eye to the image that was displayed on the LCD screen of the camera, there is inevitably a marked difference. It's my experience that there is a tendency to compress detail in the case of extreme wide-angles and ultimately you may be slightly disappointed with the results ! This is categorically not a complaint concerning Sigma's remarkable lens, but purely my own findings.

Best regards
Richard