[Setter Dog]

I'm using the Pentax 55-300mm WR on my K50 and really loving it! Great lens!

I want one more lens and am considering the Tamron 18-200mm. I'll be using it around the yard and in the National Parks for landscapes, sunrises etc. My thinking is the extra zoom might be handy from time to time.

Any user opinions really appreciated.

Jack

[pathdoc]

What are you currently using at the short end, below 50mm? If you've got an 18-55, 16-45, etc. etc. you pretty much have your needs covered. In those circumstances, if I were buying a backup superzoom to cover everything with one lens, I would go for either the broadest focal length range available in K mount (18-270, I believe, these days) or the DA18-135 to offer a weather-sealed package for if things turned bad on you.

If you have the 55-300 and ONLY the 55-300, and are looking for something to cover the wide end, 18-200 may be a bit too much of an overlap.

[BigMackCam]

Hi Jack - I haven't used the Tammy 18-200, but I have used other superzooms, including the Tamron-derived Pentax DA18-270 and currently the Sigma 18-300, so I hope I'm a little bit qualified to comment...

Do you really need that superzoom range? Optically, they do not deliver the same results as the better more-limited zoom range lenses. Your 55-300 WR is a great lens... how about spending the money on a fast wide-normal zoom like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 or (more expensive) Pentax DA16-50 f/2.8? One of these would fill in the range you are missing and give you excellent IQ for landscapes, as well as offering a lot more scope for lower-light photography by using the wider aperture settings. Or... have you considered using the 55-300 at the wide end and taking multiple shots (hand-held or tripod) to create stitched panorama shots? This works extremely well for landscapes, and is something you could try without spending extra money. There are plenty of software options (some of them free) to create stitched panorama shots...

As I said, I have and use the Sigma 18-300 (and still own the Pentax DA18-270 - which is fine, but the Sigma is better). The range is undoubtedly useful, but unless you really need it for convenience, this type of lens is rarely the best choice...

[DogLover]

I have owned the 18-200 before. My wife used it. I can tell you it is a definite step down from the 55-300, IQ-wise. You'll mainly want to shoot it at f8 to keep things looking decent.

[Setter Dog]

What are you currently using at the short end, below 50mm? If you've got an 18-55, 16-45, etc. etc. you pretty much have your needs covered. In those circumstances, if I were buying a backup superzoom to cover everything with one lens, I would go for either the broadest focal length range available in K mount (18-270, I believe, these days) or the DA18-135 to offer a weather-sealed package for if things turned bad on you.

If you have the 55-300 and ONLY the 55-300, and are looking for something to cover the wide end, 18-200 may be a bit too much of an overlap.

Right now, all I have is the 55-300mm WR, so I have a huge choice of things to consider for landscapes etc. I bought the K50 mainly for use with the 55-300mm.

---------- Post added 03-26-16 at 05:45 PM ----------

I have owned the 18-200 before. My wife used it. I can tell you it is a definite step down from the 55-300, IQ-wise. You'll mainly want to shoot it at f8 to keep things looking decent.

Thanks for the user comment. I think I'll pass on it if the IQ doesn't measure up to the 55-300mm.

Jack

---------- Post added 03-26-16 at 05:47 PM ----------

Hi Jack - I haven't used the Tammy 18-200, but I have used other superzooms, including the Tamron-derived Pentax DA18-270 and currently the Sigma 18-300, so I hope I'm a little bit qualified to comment...

Do you really need that superzoom range? Optically, they do not deliver the same results as the better more-limited zoom range lenses. Your 55-300 WR is a great lens... how about spending the money on a fast wide-normal zoom like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 or (more expensive) Pentax DA16-50 f/2.8? One of these would fill in the range you are missing and give you excellent IQ for landscapes, as well as offering a lot more scope for lower-light photography by using the wider aperture settings. Or... have you considered using the 55-300 at the wide end and taking multiple shots (hand-held or tripod) to create stitched panorama shots? This works extremely well for landscapes, and is something you could try without spending extra money. There are plenty of software options (some of them free) to create stitched panorama shots...

As I said, I have and use the Sigma 18-300 (and still own the Pentax DA18-270 - which is fine, but the Sigma is better). The range is undoubtedly useful, but unless you really need it for convenience, this type of lens is rarely the best choice...

Thanks for all those suggestions. I'll look into all of those lenses!

Jack

[Nickrs]

Have you considered the Sigma 18-250? As a general purpose walk around lens I find it really useful, the build quality on mine is excellent and IQ adequate. Another option would be to buy a new DA 35mm F2.4 which is a highly regarded prime and stunning value for money lens.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-L-35mm-F2.4-AL.html

[paulh]

DA18-135 WR would be my pick. Or, Tamron/Sigma 17-50/2.8, Sigma 17-70, or even a DA18-55WR to complete your WR kit.

[normhead]

The companion zooms for the 55-300 in no particular order, DA -18-135, saves a lot of lens changes, DA 16 -85, widest and best edge to edge but the most expensive, Pentax or SIgma's 17-70, Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-50. There's a lot of choice there. Personally, I'd go with the best price I could find on one of those lenses.

I'd also mention we have the Sigma 18-250, and though we had high hopes, it remains a lens we use only when we absolutely want just one lens and can't take two, which turns out to be a lot less than we thought it would be when we bought the lens.

[BigMackCam]

we have the Sigma 18-250, and though we had high hopes, it remains a lens we use only when we absolutely want just one lens and can't take two, which turns out to be a lot less than we thought it would be when we bought the lens.

And that's exactly what I think about my 18-300.... which I love, incidentally... but only because it's a great one lens solution when needed; never because it is a "great" lens...

[erobles]

I have it, with a K-50 just like you. I bought an used one from an Ebay japanese vendor. I'm not a pro by a long shot by I think I get great shots with it. I can share my Flick with my last vacations if you want. I think it's a great value for the price. Sheers!

[Nicolas06]

If conveniance is a must with a single lens solution, then you need something like the 18-200 or 18-300. Quality wise it would do great picture in great lighting conditions and would fit if you don't print large. But any lens does that.

If you want to keep 55-300 level of quality, you would better get a separate zoom.

The DA18-135 and DA16-85 would be nice because you could take them alone in many condtions... As long as you don't plan to shoot wildlife for the day. As long as you shoot outdoor in daylight you would be fine.

The DA16-50 f/2.8 and tamron/sigma 17-50 f/2.8 have low light capabilities due to f/2.8 apperture and have more capacity to separate the subject from the background. They are quite interresting indoor but because they stop at 50mm only, you'd often want to have a second lens in the bag, at least outdoor like your 55-300.

That's why indeed some people would buy both like 18-135 for outdoor/walks and 17-50 for indoor/low light and would take one or the other depending of the situation.

[Nickrs]

I bought two K50s (one in stunning red) and I handed them on to my daughters when I upgraded to a K3, the K50 is a fantastic camera and somewhat underrated I feel. My view is that the best lens is one that you use, super-zooms may have to make compromises in IQ quality to achieve their flexibility but often those compromises can be corrected with photoshop/gimp/paintshop pro/lightroom etc. I have quite a collection of lenses ranging from fisheye to telephoto, from primes to super-zooms and I use the super-zooms more than I should just because they are so damn convenient. Super-zoom quality has come on in leaps and bounds in recent years, they are not as compromised as they used to be. In this case I would recommend to the original poster that the simplest and cheapest thing to do is just to buy a Pentax 18-55 WR kit lens (which is pretty good for a kit lens), he can then start to evaluate just what he wants to do with his photography perhaps with a view to starting a collection of quality primes for special purposes (eg: the D-FA 100mm Macro F2.8 for portraits and macro or the DA 50mm F1.8 for low light or a Sigma fisheye for fun).

[edmundrt]

I have had the Tammy 18-200 for about a year now, and I use it from time to time. IQ is 100% fine (but not special) stopped down on a decent camera, handling is ok and the AF is fine (n.b. the focus throw is VERY short so manual focus is pretty much out of the question).
It's a decent lens, but as I said, I only use it from time to time, and that doesn't feel like enough for a lens that's supposed to do 90% of the work. They are inexpensive but I wish I'd spent my money on something a bit more exciting. Good 16-45mm Pentax-DA lenses can be had for not much more money, and I reckon you would get more satisfying results from one of those, if you already have your telephoto needs covered by the 55-300.

[houseofstyles]

I've had this lens for 6 years. I have several other lenses that include part of that range, and tend to pick up one of them more often and forget the Tammy 18-200. But then I suddenly remember it, take it somewhere as a one lens solution, and find myself pleasantly surprised with the results. I even feel it's not bad wide open, the range is great, it's incredibly compact, and it's cheap! Recommended.

[Setter Dog]

I always value user comments above professional reviews or technical opinions. I really appreciate that you took time to give me your experiences with the Tamron.

And, to everyone else that responded, you have been VERY helpful. I've done research on the lenses you recommended. I'm mulling everything over and will be confident when I make a purchase.

What a great and helpful forum!

Jack