[ElJamoquio]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Tamron has released ANYTHING new for K-mount in the last few years. Which means that some of their best and most exciting lenses are not available to Pentax users.

It was like at some specific point they made a business decision to not release any new designs in K-mount. So seeing an "upgraded" or "rebranded" anything from Tamron would definitely mark a change in their policy towards K-mount.

I agree with the first sentiment and not the second.

Tamron isn't producing anything new for K-mount, yes.

Pentax has, in the past, rebranded Tamron stuff. I'm sure if Pentax guaranteed Tamron $X sales then they'd produced a K-mount, of course they already know how.

So it's possible... and in the case of many lenses I hope it gets done. It would really help Pentax fill some gaps.

[Biro]

Doing some serious travelling soon I still want one. Having a 18-250 Tamron moving to the Pentax 18-270 is not enough difference, but upgrading to the 16-300 Tamron would be well worth it.

Agreed. I have the Pentax-branded 18-250. The 16-300 with WR might be enough for me to upgrade. But they have to offer it in K-mount first.

Probably we will see an upgraded 18-270 or an 18-300 with WR and HD coating. But if they give us a rebranded 16-300 that would be great.

The only thing that worries me is the potential price. Given the price of Pentax glass these days, I suspect a Pentax-branded 16-300 would list at $900 or more.

[gembrook]

Something close that is / has been released is the Sigma 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DC MACRO HSM Contemporary Lens for Pentax K which is actually mentioned on the forum Sigma Launches New 18-300mm "Contemporary" Lens - Third-Party Announcements | PentaxForums.com

Not quite a 16-300 or WR but close. Seems to be getting good reviews

[reh321]

Doing some serious travelling soon I still want one. Having a 18-250 Tamron moving to the Pentax 18-270 is not enough difference, but upgrading to the 16-300 Tamron would be well worth it.

Just about a year ago, I got a Tamron 18-270mm for my Canon Rebel. For various reasons, including image quality and (in)convenience of handling the lens, I had switched back to my two lens (18-55mm and 70-300mm) solution before my Rebel died and I bought my current K-30.

[totsmuyco]

If only the sigma 18-300 is WR I would get one. One of the main reasons I went to Pentax is the WR.

[stuarrt]

Well, I personally would get the pentax 16-85 or the Sigma 18-250 for the plane, and try to find a nice SMC 50mm 1.7 for portraits.

[pathdoc]

I suspect a Pentax-branded 16-300 would list at $900 or more.

One lens to rule them all (if all you ever do is glossy 6x4 and social media).

[totsmuyco]

A rebranded 16-300 for $900 would be too much. The price of the 150-600 is less than $1000 here in my part of the woods. The sigma 18-300 is about $500. So maybe it should be higher than the sigma but not as high as $900.

[totsmuyco]

I know this thread is a little old but, I met an old acquaintance yesterday. He had a D7200 and with it was the Tamron 16-300. It was light and snappy. I would love to have one if this will be available in the K-mount. Man, we are missing a lot.

[normhead]

I know this thread is a little old but, I met an old acquaintance yesterday. He had a D7200 and with it was the Tamron 16-300. It was light and snappy. I would love to have one if this will be available in the K-mount. Man, we are missing a lot.

What do you mean "we"?

My wife and I gave away my Sigma 18-250 and there is the Pentax rebranded Tamron. These types of lenses are available for those who want one. What happened? You ask. My wife and I shot side by side, an endangered Eastern red Wolf. The subject of the pictures was practically identical, but the 60-250 had much smoother out of focus areas. She never used the lens again except on one lens outings and eventually gave it away.

The thing is, in 35 years spending on average 3 weeks a year in the park, I've had one opportunity to photograph an Eastern Red Wolf. Tess realized because she was using her superzoom, her images weren't as good as they could have been. That bothers her to this day.

There's hardly any difference between 16-300 and 18-270 (which is licensed and available. If you want a superzoom, buy what's available. Whining about what isn't available get's you no where. And in terms of convincing us you're serious, if you don't own the 18-270, and feel you need to upgrade, well, you haven't tried what's available so how do we know you'd really like what isn't. Are we supposed to believe adding an extra 32 mm in focal length is going to be the difference between you buying and not buying? Buy what's available find out whether you like the super zooms or not. Then complain. I'll take you more seriously.

The new superzoom are only marginally better than the ones that came before them. Definitely not enough better my Tess would be happy with one... once burned...

My response to the thread title would be "Any news on you buying a Sigma 18-250, a Pentax 18-270 or any other superzoom that would convince us you're serious about even wanting a super zoom." After all there are some superzoom available. If you want one buy one, Behaving like a 5 year old in a supermarket pointing and saying "I have to have that one I don't want those other ones." doesn't get you anywhere. Life is too short for such nonsense. Get on with it.

[tibbitts]

What do you mean "we"?

My wife and I gave away my Sigma 18-250 and there is the Pentax rebranded Tamron. These types of lenses are available for those who want one. What happened? You ask. My wife and I shot side by side, an endangered Eastern red Wolf. The subject of the pictures was practically identical, but the 60-250 had much smoother out of focus areas. She never used the lens again except on one lens outings and eventually gave it away.

The thing is, in 35 years spending on average 3 weeks a year in the park, I've had one opportunity to photograph an Eastern Red Wolf. Tess realized because she was using her superzoom, her images weren't as good as they could have been. That bothers her to this day.

There's hardly any difference between 16-300 and 18-270 (which is licensed and available. If you want a superzoom, buy what's available. Whining about what isn't available get's you no where. And in terms of convincing us you're serious, if you don't own the 18-270, and feel you need to upgrade, well, you haven't tried what's available so how do we know you'd really like what isn't. Are we supposed to believe adding an extra 32 mm in focal length is going to be the difference between you buying and not buying? Buy what's available find out whether you like the super zooms or not. Then complain. I'll take you more seriously.

The new superzoom are only marginally better than the ones that came before them. Definitely not enough better my Tess would be happy with one... once burned...

Well, I would say some people might consider buying a 16-something who wouldn't consider buying an 18-something. That's a huge difference - it's why I bought a 24/2.8 to go along with a 28-55 for 35mm, so I did actually buy something to demonstrate the difference mattered to me. I actually chose my first Pentax dslr because of the 16-45mm being 16 on the wide side for a lower price than the competition offered.

I'll agree that I don't see 270 vs. 300 being an issue.

But really the 60-250 is a completely different animal due to its relatively immense size/weight so I don't think that's a fair comparison. Everybody has to draw the line somewhere. In your example, if suddenly some opportunity had appeared closer than the 60-250 could accommodate, you would have missed it entirely. Or to go to the opposite extreme, with an animal like you mentioned, especially a moving one, you'd have a higher probability of success with some camera other than a Pentax, but I think if you missed focus a little - or couldn't blur the background the way someone with a 400/2.8 could - I'm not sure you'd feel "burned" because you had a "mere" Pentax.

[patarok]

If I would feel in need for a walkaround lens with long reach, I would make the compromise, sacrifice wide angle reach and buy a 55-300 PLM...
I think its a very good lens according to all the reviews.
It will not change any DSLRs internal focusing system, but the lens itself is as fast as can get when it comes to focussing.
You may have to contribute a bit more than on other systems, but you will most likely also have success in moving wildlife subjects with this new mode... i fancy its called "select area-expansion" or something alike in combo with the new PLM lens.

Another suggestion would be the Tamron 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 XR Di AF ...
I have an excellent copy of this lens and I am totally satisfied(despite its screw-drives focus).
I guess sooner or later we will see a PENTAX rebrand of the "Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD" but i fear it will miss VC*.

Nonetheless you are right; Tamron supporting the K-Mount would also be good for the PENTAX system itself.
But I guess since the PENTAX AF-system is a bit behind todays standards, Tamron doesnt want to get dirty.
And according to how some people in here argument about the AF-system in Pentaxland... Its always the users fault.
So it could be the lenses fault also... You know where this is goin...
My good guess is, that we will see more 3rd Party support from Sigma and any support from Tamron again, after we have DSLRs with better focusing systems.



*(Because compared to in-lens-stabilization, beyond 135-200mm fl, the dslr body-internal SR is rather a marketing gag, then anything else.)

[boriscleto]

Tamron has an 18-400 now. No whining about that not being available in K-mount?

[savoche]

Tamron has an 18-400 now. No whining about that not being available in K-mount?

Thanks, but I'll wait for the 12-600/2.8.

[c.perkins]

With my walk around photography style I purchased a 55-300 but it was not wide enough at times.
Purchased an 18-55 and was happy with the two lens coverage.
Not happy about having to change two lenses back and forth so I did some research.
Have had the Sigma 18-300 for about a month now with no complaints.
It does just as well as the other two lenses with no lens swapping.
May not take the best quality pictures from one end to the other but when you nail it, it performs.
Better to have a picture than no picture at all
In this day and age, get what you can and try it out, it may be what you are looking for.
I know I found it.
JMHO

cp