Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-05-2009, 07:52 AM   #31
Site Supporter
tomwil's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 778
I will probably be ridiculed here, but I went from an 18-55 and 50-200 setup to the 18-200 one-lens setup. I just came back from a biking trip, and it was wonderful not having to carry 2 lenses and switching between them. I could use a smaller case, had less weight to lug, and got more shots on the fly.

For me, the possible slightly less IQ was worth it for the convenience.

09-05-2009, 07:55 AM   #32
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 Manual Focus Aspherical Lens (Pentax)
09-05-2009, 08:27 AM   #33
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
that owl is awesome. owls always me smile.
may I take your order?
09-05-2009, 08:37 AM   #34
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by tomwil Quote
I will probably be ridiculed here, but I went from an 18-55 and 50-200 setup to the 18-200 one-lens setup. I just came back from a biking trip, and it was wonderful not having to carry 2 lenses and switching between them. I could use a smaller case, had less weight to lug, and got more shots on the fly.

For me, the possible slightly less IQ was worth it for the convenience.
not really. some people prefer the convenience and versatility, especially for travel. I sometimes find myself wishing on bringing the lens with the focal range that I need for an specific shot. anyway, did you meant 18-250mm?

but anyways, eventhough it's convenient, I would still prefer loading up some better lenses for those days that I want to get better results.

09-05-2009, 08:42 AM   #35
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
to the OP, getting an 18-55 WR would make sense if you are shooting under the weather since you got yourself a weather-sealed body to go with it. a 50-200 would be a good choice for a second lens covering a longer focal range. congratulations, you have yourself a complete set.
09-05-2009, 09:04 AM   #36
Site Supporter
tomwil's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 778
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
Did you meant 18-250mm?
Nope, got the Tamron-made 18-200 lens (like the one the OP mentioned), which is noticeably less expensive than the 18-250 version.
09-05-2009, 09:31 AM   #37
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by tomwil Quote
Nope, got the Tamron-made 18-200 lens (like the one the OP mentioned), which is noticeably less expensive than the 18-250 version.
thanks for the clarification. I thought it was a typo. anyway, I would had preferred the 15-250mm for the extra 50mm fl for the added range versatility.
09-05-2009, 10:20 AM   #38
Site Supporter
tomwil's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 778
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
I would had preferred the 15-250mm for the extra 50mm fl for the added range versatility.
There is a $240 difference between the 18-200 ($230 total after rebate) vs the 18-250 ($470 total). When visually comparing the lenses, there was not much noticeable difference in the extra 50mm of the 18-250.

On a tight budget like the OP, the 18-200 seems a better value. For those with wealthier pockets, the 18-250 might make better sense because of the slightly added range.

09-05-2009, 10:21 AM   #39
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Fair enough Mike. I am only making this point so people don't get frustrated. "Hey I thought I could buy a Tak for $10!" Setting unrealistic expectations might turn people off.

I took a few minutes on eBay and found the following going rates. I present it here so it might help someone. I tried to eliminate lenses in bad condition, missing all caps or with exorbitant shipping.

28/3.5.........$50-80
35/3.5.........$35-50
35/2............$90?
50/1.4.........$40-70
55/1.8.........$40
55/2............$20-30
85/1.9.........$275
105/2.8.......$75-140
135/3.5.......$25-45
200/4..........$50-70
09-05-2009, 10:42 AM   #40
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteQuote:
They didn't really make any bad Takumars (from the M42 era....forget the K-mount abominations) so it is really hard to go wrong.
Fish-Eye-Takumar 1:11/18
09-05-2009, 01:35 PM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
The 18-250 has proven to be a better lens than the 18-200.

Of the lenses suggested by the OP, the siggy 55-200 is rubbish. Whethe ryou buy my gear or not, a 50-200 on the forum is just $110 ..... screaming bargain.

Nothoing in the range of the 18-55 is as good as the 18-55 ...... not just sharpness but colour, contrast, quckshift AF .... really the two kit lenses are a no brainer unless you pony up for the 18-250.
09-05-2009, 02:22 PM   #42
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Alfisti Quote
The 18-250 has proven to be a better lens than the 18-200.

Of the lenses suggested by the OP, the siggy 55-200 is rubbish. Whethe ryou buy my gear or not, a 50-200 on the forum is just $110 ..... screaming bargain.

Nothoing in the range of the 18-55 is as good as the 18-55 ...... not just sharpness but colour, contrast, quckshift AF .... really the two kit lenses are a no brainer unless you pony up for the 18-250.
anyway, if the OP is not using or considering a wide zoom, the 55-300mm would be the best bang for the buck and it's even cheaper than the 18-250, which makes the purchase much better.
09-05-2009, 05:08 PM   #43
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
Original Poster
Even though I'm not really putting much thought into the wide angle, I still have to have something that is at least 28mm wide. I'd much prefer 24 or 18 though.
09-06-2009, 10:33 AM   #44
Senior Member
jslifoaw's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto/Victoria
Posts: 262
You didn't really indicate in your post what the purpose of your new lens(es) would be. For day to day stuff you probably don't want MF Takumars however cheap they may be since you need a little more patience to use them. Primes also slow you down, for better or for worse.

For low light stuff, you usually don't want a kit zoom/super zoom unless your subjects are still and you have a tripod.

The trick is to be completely certain with your purchase and ensure it is not simply for the sake of buying something; you might want to consider saving some more for a better lens which you could be more likely to use more frequently and/or have better luck reselling in case you change your mind. Things that come to mind include the DA 17-70 or 16-45.
09-06-2009, 10:49 AM   #45
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lachine, Quebec, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 453
I know this thread is long and full of caveats and many (very) expert opinions by those with much greater experience with more glass than myself, but I find my Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 IF AS XR to have been a great investment for my walk-around all purpose lens.

I purchased this lens last fall for $110.00 here on the market place.

Not too many reviews of this lens- odd, since it was quite a popular lens at the time of its release (in 2005, if I'm not mistaken), and it did win awards at the time.

Yes, PF wide open, yes, a bit soft at 200mm. But useable. f/8, awesome. I read one post at the time of purchase where the poster said he felt this lens was actually equal in image quality to the 18-250mm tamron super zoom, and said poster returned the 18-250 and just kept the 28-200.

Full frame, if you ever want to venture into film land you have a very decent walk-around lens.

Seen these recently in the $120.00-$150.00 range.
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!
50-200mm, k-mount, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens, tamron, warranty, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sigma 18-250 or Pentax/Tamron 18-250? mjbens01 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 07-08-2010 09:10 PM
Pentax 18-250 always same as Tamron 18-250? kitkat Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 07-08-2010 08:30 AM
Tax and spend repubs..opps.. just spend. jeffkrol General Talk 31 07-01-2010 03:23 PM
Don't want to spend too much jct us101 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 02-15-2009 04:45 PM
Why DA18-250 is double the price of Tamron 18-250? raider Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 12-13-2008 05:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:22 AM. | 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