[tomwil]

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.

[jogiba]

Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 Manual Focus Aspherical Lens (Pentax)

[Pentaxor]

that owl is awesome. owls always me smile.

may I take your order?

[Pentaxor]

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.

[Pentaxor]

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.

[tomwil]

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.

[Pentaxor]

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.

[tomwil]

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.

[rparmar]

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

[séamuis]

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

[Alfisti]

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.

[Pentaxor]

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.

[jct us101]

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.

[jslifoaw]

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.

[virgilr]

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.