[myllis]

Hi,

Finally start to look all around zoom for my K20. I have finally few zooms at the list, but but..... Zoom range should be from 18mm up to 200mm at least. Few questions has been come in my mind and I have put my question under lens. Anyway every advices and experiences needed...

Sigma 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM
- out on march?
Tamron 18-270mm F3.5-6.3 Di II LD (IF) Macro
- no pentax mount in the near future?
- how usefull is macro feature?
Tamron AF 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR LD Di-II
- ????
Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 LD ASP Macro
- how usefull is macro feature
Pentax SMC-DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3ED AL [IF]
- still available at least in Finland
- same as Tamron?

Best Regards,

myllis

[Lowell Goudge]

not to knock all around zooms, but I find them a little limiting in terms of apature, and wide angle capability. My preference is to go with some limited zoom range (3:1 ratio as opposed to 10+:1) however,...

with respect to the macro feature, you should always have at least one lens in your carry on kit that lets you focus close. Not true macro, but maybe 1/3 life size. From my comment at the beginning, clearly I don't have one of these lenses, but I would check which lens gives you the magnification ratio for macro at the longest working distance, that is important.

Otherwise, my biggest issue with these lenses is that they simply don;t go wide enough for travel photography, and you should consider as a minimum adding an ultra wide at the bottom end.

[myllis]

not to knock all around zooms, but I find them a little limiting in terms of apature, and wide angle capability. My preference is to go with some limited zoom range (3:1 ratio as opposed to 10+:1) however,...

with respect to the macro feature, you should always have at least one lens in your carry on kit that lets you focus close. Not true macro, but maybe 1/3 life size. From my comment at the beginning, clearly I don't have one of these lenses, but I would check which lens gives you the magnification ratio for macro at the longest working distance, that is important.

Otherwise, my biggest issue with these lenses is that they simply don;t go wide enough for travel photography, and you should consider as a minimum adding an ultra wide at the bottom end.

Yep, I know that I'am making a compromise. I already have Pentax 16-50mm/f2.8, Pentax 55-300mm/f4-5.9 and Sigma 70mm/f2.9 macro. In some situations (eq. motorsport) you will loose the best picture when your are changing the lens. And two cameras does not sound good idea..

[audiobomber]

Yep, I know that I'am making a compromise. I already have Pentax 16-50mm/f2.8, Pentax 55-300mm/f4-5.9 and Sigma 70mm/f2.9 macro. In some situations (eq. motorsport) you will loose the best picture when your are changing the lens. And two cameras does not sound good idea..

I completely understand your need for a sujperzoom. I had several more specialized lenses when I bought the Pentax 18-250mm. I consider the 18-250 a specialty lens too. Its specialty is "all purpose". It's not the best at anything, but it does everything passably well. That's quite an achievement AFAIC.

I've never tried the Tamron 18-200 but professional and user reviews agree that performance doesn't match the 18-250. OTOH it's a lot cheaper, so it has its allure for some. Looking at the rest of your kit, I think you should move up the line.

The Tamron and Pentax 18-250mm's are identical in construction, but may have different coatings (Pentax advertises smc for its version) and usually carry different warranty periods and price. It was a no-brainer for me because
- the Pentax Canada 2-yr warranty is longer than Tamron's international warranty (1 year)
- the Pentax was cheaper, and
- it says Pentax on it (more prestigious name in case of resale)

The image quality of the 18-250 falls between my 18-55 and 16-45 except at the wide end where it loses ground due to heavy barrel distortion. Pentax rightfully doesn't call a lens like this a macro, but it does have a useful close focus ability. It's perfect for flower heads, useless for insect macros. If you want to add true 1:1 macro, it mates very nicely with a Raynox DCR-150 and you won't notice much if any loss in IQ.

As you noted, the Tamron 18-270 is not offered in Pentax mount (yet?), but early indications are that it doesn't match the 18-250's image quality in Canon mount.

I don't know anything about the Sigma, but I've heard it will be pricier. Tamron up to now has owned the superzoom category, so Sigma will have to come up with a real winner to justify a higher pricetag.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 02-04-2009 at 07:12 AM.

[losecontrol]

Tamron 18-270mm F3.5-6.3 Di II LD (IF) Macro
- no pentax mount in the near future?

As you noted, the Tamron 18-270 is not offered in Pentax mount (yet?), but early indications are that it doesn't match the 18-250's image quality in Canon mount.

I know that pentax has the same owner as tamron. That's why they don't do lenses for pentax. They work in the same fabric almost

I was suprised too, but that's the way it is. Maybe they don't want to compete agains themselves

[losecontrol]

Pentax company is not just pentax and hoya. I do promise it

I know that pentax has the same owner as tamron. That's why they don't do lenses for pentax. They work in the same fabric almost

I was suprised too, but that's the way it is. Maybe they don't want to compete agains themselves

You're confusing them with Tokina and even so there is no solid proof that Hoya has more than close working relation to them.
Tamron quite oposite to be a "friend" to Pentax has as the second most important stock holder Sony Corp: TAMRON | Stock Information

Radu

[Erik]

I know that pentax has the same owner as tamron. That's why they don't do lenses for pentax. They work in the same fabric almost

You don't mean Tamron, you mean Tokina, and it is not a secret that Pentax and Tokina share some lens designs and that this is why Tokina doesn't do K-mount themselves. They don't have the same owner. Tamron DOES make lenses for Pentax. Quite a few, in fact.

[gnaztee]

Yep, I know that I'am making a compromise. I already have Pentax 16-50mm/f2.8, Pentax 55-300mm/f4-5.9 and Sigma 70mm/f2.9 macro. In some situations (eq. motorsport) you will loose the best picture when your are changing the lens. And two cameras does not sound good idea..

I hate when people do what I'm about to do, because you didn't list getting two cameras as an option, but you could swing the K-m for a little more than the superzoom, then mount your 16-50 on one camera and the 55-300 on the K-m ( I do this very thing and I think it works well). Just a thought...

[myllis]

I hate when people do what I'm about to do, because you didn't list getting two cameras as an option, but you could swing the K-m for a little more than the superzoom, then mount your 16-50 on one camera and the 55-300 on the K-m ( I do this very thing and I think it works well). Just a thought...

Two cameras is not an option. If you have to walk 10-15kilometers per day in a swap and cross the rivers by walking and keep your camera somehow ready and dry, it's not an option.

See Ëàäîãà-Òðîôè

[Jasvox]

Getting back to your questions....some things to consider:

The Sigma 18-250 (yet to be released) and the Tamron 18-270 both are aimed and geared for non-Pentax owners....i.e., camera bodies with no Shake Reduction built in. The Sigma will be made with the Pentax mount, and maybe the Tamron will have the Pentax mount in the future, but still...with SR built in our camera bodies already, why spend the extra $$$ for this redundant feature, which you will, and not really get a better quality lens than the...

Tamron 18-250 sand Pentax 18-250, which are identical lenses, except for the badging. Technology-wise, the very same lens. The macro works fine on my Tamron version, by the way.

Lastly, the Tamron or Sigma 18-200, have been replaced by the 18-250 and the reviews on the newer models (18-250) have more or less made the 18-200 versions obsolete as they are ranked superior.

Jason

[gnaztee]

Two cameras is not an option. If you have to walk 10-15kilometers per day in a swap and cross the rivers by walking and keep your camera somehow ready and dry, it's not an option.

See Ëàäîãà-Òðîôè

Okay, that makes sense. But why are you asking about macro on these lenses? If it's for fast action (so no lens changing) of off-road racing, why do you need macro? In case you see a flower? I'm just trying to figure out what exactly you need it for, and in what situations you can't change lenses.

[myllis]

Okay, that makes sense. But why are you asking about macro on these lenses? If it's for fast action (so no lens changing) of off-road racing, why do you need macro? In case you see a flower? I'm just trying to figure out what exactly you need it for, and in what situations you can't change lenses.

The macro is not essential, but one of the publisher eg. (OFF-ROAD DRIVE: Ãëàâíàÿ) wuold like to always ad for the story some native pictures which told something for the area nature eq. if some berries are famous as buckthorns, cloudberries or other hand in the swamp you see many nice creatures what you can't reach anywhere else .. some close shot details... The macro is not essential but closer you can get.... always better.

Lens changing, you and conditions are usually so dirty and so many bugs, it will take a time...