Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-20-2008, 07:50 PM   #16
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,667
QuoteOriginally posted by rfortson Quote
Any examples of this? I haven't really seen anything other than some vignetting at the wide end, and a little barrel distortion at the longer end, both easily correctable.
How about this?



IME it's pretty beavily distorted all the way to 24mm. The 16-45mm has far less distortion at 16mm than the 18-250mm at 18.

08-20-2008, 08:30 PM   #17
Veteran Member
rfortson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Houston TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,129
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
How about this?

IME it's pretty beavily distorted all the way to 24mm. The 16-45mm has far less distortion at 16mm than the 18-250mm at 18.
I agree there's distortion in the shot, but it's easily correctable with the Pentax software, and I'm sure many others. I also don't think it's fair to compare a 16-45 to an 18-250, they're just completely different lenses.

I guess we'll all agree that the 18-250 is not a good architectural lens.
08-20-2008, 09:45 PM   #18
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,667
QuoteOriginally posted by rfortson Quote
I agree there's distortion in the shot, but it's easily correctable with the Pentax software, and I'm sure many others. I also don't think it's fair to compare a 16-45 to an 18-250, they're just completely different lenses.

I guess we'll all agree that the 18-250 is not a good architectural lens.
Yes, the distortion can be corrected, but in RAW only, not in jpeg, and it is heavier than most any other lens. The 18-250 is a great achievement, but my point was that the OP (who seems to have disappeared) would realize better performance with his 18-55mm AL II and a 55-300mm rather than an 18-250mm.
08-20-2008, 10:33 PM   #19
Site Supporter
LaRee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Diego
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,226
QuoteOriginally posted by chaos83 Quote
hi all... just got a k200d 2 months ago. the 18-55 kit lens da II is pretty good kit glass and pretty soon ill be getting the fa 50mm f1.4. next step would be a zoom lens, and i was thinking of the Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II Macro as it covers the whole range and does macro too, so i think it would be a decent jack of all trades, and maybe sell my kit lens. my needs for now are simple.

any opinion on the tamron? popphoto has a favorable review on it.

Lens Test: Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II Macro - - PopPhotoMay 2007

id like a real world opinion many thanks for your wisdom.

QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Yes, the distortion can be corrected, but in RAW only, not in jpeg, and it is heavier than most any other lens. The 18-250 is a great achievement, but my point was that the OP (who seems to have disappeared) would realize better performance with his 18-55mm AL II and a 55-300mm rather than an 18-250mm.
Reading the OP's post makes me think that they are after a well priced versatile all in one lens. When it comes to image quality, I think in most cases a two or (or better more lens) approach to a wide focal range is seen as superior to a long range zoom. That is the standard wisdom given physical/engineering limitations.

I find the tamron 18-250 to be an excellent value for what it is and it delivers quite well for me. Each lens I own has some sort of characteristic that I need to work around at some point in some situation. Some of the most stunning work I've ever viewed was taken with a kit lens.

I like the flexibility of a zoom for out and about shooting. After all, I do come from 12x zoom digicam. Well heck, that is like saying I come from an old Brownie since that is what I first shot with, followed by the famous 110 camera, to a sweeet Minolta X700 slr that I still have. Amazing how much time those cameras spanned compared to the list of digital cameras I've owned in the past 8 years. Oh, gee, sorry to digress here...

Besides rattling on here, I did have a point to post. There are many ways to get excellent coverage in a focal range. How you choose to cover the range is a lot of times limited by budget or practical limitations like traveling light, or convenance. But still, the tamron 18-250 is much like the tamron 70-300 to me. Many more qualities to love than warts to worry about.

08-21-2008, 07:41 AM   #20
Veteran Member
rfortson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Houston TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,129
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Yes, the distortion can be corrected, but in RAW only, not in jpeg, and it is heavier than most any other lens. The 18-250 is a great achievement, but my point was that the OP (who seems to have disappeared) would realize better performance with his 18-55mm AL II and a 55-300mm rather than an 18-250mm.
All the more reason to shoot raw. However, in Photoshop Elements (at least), you can still get the same lens distortion correction with jpeg.

I've never considered the lens heavy at all, but I didn't check the weight. I know it's heavier than the 50-200, but I also know it's lighter than the 18-55 and the 50-200 combined. I imagine it's lighter than the 18-55 and 55-300 combined as well. Plus the physical dimensions are only slightly larger than the 18-55 kit lens.

As LaRee said, you'll almost always get better performance with two lenses than one, but the point of the 18-250 is that it gives the best on lens performance that covers that wide of a range. To me, the trade offs are worth it. To others, it's not.
08-21-2008, 09:19 AM   #21
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,667
QuoteOriginally posted by rfortson Quote
All the more reason to shoot raw. However, in Photoshop Elements (at least), you can still get the same lens distortion correction with jpeg.

I've never considered the lens heavy at all, but I didn't check the weight. I know it's heavier than the 50-200, but I also know it's lighter than the 18-55 and the 50-200 combined. I imagine it's lighter than the 18-55 and 55-300 combined as well. Plus the physical dimensions are only slightly larger than the 18-55 kit lens.
I wasn't talking about the weight. I said it has heavier wide-angle distortion than almost any other lens. In case it matters to anyone, the 18-250 wieghs 455g, one pound.

QuoteOriginally posted by rfortson Quote
As LaRee said, you'll almost always get better performance with two lenses than one, but the point of the 18-250 is that it gives the best on lens performance that covers that wide of a range. To me, the trade offs are worth it. To others, it's not.
I agree, and I think I covered that in previous posts. It's the best "extreme zoom" I know of. But it does have faults and limitations, which I am attempting to describe. Just saying how great it is, is only telling half the story.

Last edited by audiobomber; 08-21-2008 at 02:24 PM.
08-21-2008, 01:10 PM   #22
Site Supporter
Fl_Gulfer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida Gulfer
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,051
Plus the Tamron 18-250 has 5 more years of warranty then the Pentax's 1 year. I think the 55-300 is a better lens than the 18-250 iQ wise. I sold my 18-250 for some extra money to get my K20D camera and I don't miss it since I have the 18-55 and the 55-300.
08-21-2008, 04:33 PM   #23
Veteran Member
rfortson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Houston TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,129
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I wasn't talking about the weight. I said it has heavier wide-angle distortion than almost any other lens. In case it matters to anyone, the 18-250 wieghs 455g, one pound.



I agree, and I think I covered that in previous posts. It's the best "extreme zoom" I know of. But it does have faults and limitations, which I am attempting to describe. Just saying how great it is, is only telling half the story.
I think we're in violent agreement here. I too mentioned the distortion, but I've never found it to be too high of a price to pay for convenience. Your picture is a good example of what to expect in that specific situation. Luckily I don't take too many geometric shots like that, but if you're taking shots of buildings or such, it's definitely something that will have to be fixed.

Sorry, I mistook your "heavy" for weight, but I now see what you meant.


Last edited by rfortson; 08-21-2008 at 04:40 PM.
08-21-2008, 04:49 PM   #24
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Shrewsbury, England
Posts: 10
One way to think of it is that it gives you a good quality 24-120mm zoom lens with reasonable close-up performance, which is a great walk-around combination. Not only that, it also gives you instant access to usable coverage of the 18-24mm and 120-200/250mm ranges without missing any shots or getting dust onto your sensor.

If you can afford and are able to carry around better quality wide/long lenses, have the time to change over to them, and are in no danger of dust contamination, even better.

Even then, a good quality walk-around lens with a useful zoom range (call it 24-120mm if you choose not to use the full range) is a great thing to have.

Last edited by Richard; 08-21-2008 at 04:56 PM.
08-21-2008, 05:22 PM   #25
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,667
QuoteOriginally posted by Richard Quote
Even then, a good quality walk-around lens with a useful zoom range (call it 24-120mm if you choose not to use the full range) is a great thing to have.
I'll call it a good quality 24-150mm, with extended capabilities at each end.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
di, f/3.5-6.3, ii, k-mount, kit, lens, macro, opinion, pentax lens, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Tamron 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 AF Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro (Worldwide) Aegon Sold Items 3 09-22-2010 05:37 AM
DA★60-250mm Opinion poll kcmadr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 03-27-2009 05:22 AM
opinion? - Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II Macro chaos83 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 0 08-18-2008 09:30 PM
Opinion on Tamron 80-210mm f3.8-4.0 Tele Macro MF Lens (103A) ? kevinfox203 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 03-17-2008 11:34 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:41 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top