Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-21-2007, 12:07 PM   #16
Site Supporter
hinman's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fremont, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,425
I am on the same boat

I am bascially looking for similar thing in replacing my Kit's lens but I would prefer not to go to Tamron 18-250. I think I would much prefer to think of Tamron 18-250 as a all-in-one lens than a replacement for the kit's lens. Look at the weight and price. It strikes me a big difference especially in the weight.

What I have in mine are the following in order of preferences and caveats considered.

1. Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-f/4.5 ( I wish the f/2.8 is fixed throughout the focal range)
2. Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 (I wish it is a little wider and cost a bit less)
3. Pentax 28-105 f/3.2 - f/4.5 (I wish it is a little wider and little faster)
4. Tamron or Sigma 18-125 (I wish for better IQ)

My thinking is captured in an old blog post when I find soft pictures in my DA 18-55 for indoor usage

Pentax Protrait Lens - Hin's Tech Corner

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks,
Hin

09-21-2007, 02:56 PM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Estonia
Posts: 261
QuoteOriginally posted by Salminus Quote
It’s being really hard for me to make this choice range vs speed.
To be honest, I do not see the dilemma here. If you need the range, it's no-brainer, get Tamron, because you need it. If you don't need that range, it's no-brainer, get Sigma, because it gives better quality.

The fact that you're willing to give up 180mm of range hints that you may not need Tamron after all. Or am I missing here something?
09-23-2007, 10:47 AM   #18
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
Hi again Salminus

Perhaps look at it this way. Would you rather spend part of your time:

a) Changing lenses over whilst simultaneously

(1) worrying about the particles of dust that will inevitably land on your camera's sensor and
(2) subsequently getting rid of them somehow.....

or alternatively:

b) ALL of your time actually taking photographs, which is presumably the main reason you decided to buy your camera in the first place ? The choice is yours...

Best regards
Richard
09-23-2007, 12:28 PM   #19
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
Richard ("Confused"),

You asked Salminus if he would rather spend time changing lenses (and worrying about dust) or taking photos. That's one way of looking at it, although I don't know that it gets poor Salminus very far.

Yes, if the Tamron 18-250 were in every respect the equal of the Sigma 17-70, except that the Tamron had more range, then the choice would be simple. But other things are almost NEVER equal. Even choosing between the Tamron 18-200 and the Tamron 18-250 is not a no-brainer, although the 18-250 is a better lens and has a longer range. Where's the difficulty? Well, the 18-250 also costs more.

I can't speak with any authority about the Sigma 17-70 as I don't own it, and I'm not a lens expert in any case. But based on the reviews I've read, and also on general principles, I have a strong suspicion that within its range, the 17-70 will take superior pictures. The Tamron 18-250 is a decent lens, and very versatile. But I bet the Sigma is a little better than decent.

I gave my answer already, and I was in agreement with you: I myself would buy the Tamron mega-zoom first. And that's in fact what I did. But as I get other, more specialized and better lenses into my collection, I have to be honest: I find myself using the Tamron 18-250 less and less. As a ready-for-anything lens, it's hard to beat. But don't do much of that kind of shooting any more. I use the 18-250 mostly as my long lens, which is fine, but if I could trade it for, say, a decent 70-200 f/2.8, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Ultimately, this discussion takes me back to something I've said in this forum and others a number of times, when talking to folks who are just buying their first dslr, namely: Understand that the purchase of the camera itself is only a part of the real cost of ownership. I gather that there are stats showing that a large number of dslr buyers don't ever buy a second lens. But those folks don't show up on these forums, because they're fundamentally not very serious about their hobby. The folks who do show up here are (presumably) a bit more serious. They will want to reap the real benefits of dslr ownership, and one of the main benefits if not THE main benefit is interchangeable, high-quality lenses. So the new owner who spends, say, $600 on a camera should expect to spend at least another $300 to $600 to buy one or two additional lenses.

Will

09-23-2007, 01:59 PM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,563
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
Richard ("Confused"),

I gave my answer already, and I was in agreement with you: I myself would buy the Tamron mega-zoom first. And that's in fact what I did. But as I get other, more specialized and better lenses into my collection, I have to be honest: I find myself using the Tamron 18-250 less and less. As a ready-for-anything lens, it's hard to beat. But don't do much of that kind of shooting any more. I use the 18-250 mostly as my long lens, which is fine, but if I could trade it for, say, a decent 70-200 f/2.8, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Will
There are two things the 18-250 Tamron specializes in: 1. dust prevention, 2. startup time. You will be prepared for allmost every situation. I bought the lens for one single purpose; a safari trip to Tanzania. Down there, there is an extreme amount of dust around and you will find yourself in situations that don't allow for lens changes all the time. The opportunity for a good shot will just be gone. In situations like a safari trip, this lens cannot be beaten. The results are pretty good. You can live with the f6.3 in the long end when shooting RAW & ISO280+ plus a decent PP software package. SD cards are not that expensive anymore, forget JPG. I found myself using the P and Sv modes most of the time. This makes you respond very fast and you will travel light for a decent price. When at home, with more time, a controlled environment you might want to get into more specialized lenses as Will says. For sure, I'm happy with it. It is a good deal.

- Bert
09-24-2007, 08:38 AM   #21
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
Hi again Will

When trying to evaluate the pro's & con's between the Sigma and Tamron lenses, as I said earlier in this post:

QuoteQuote:
I've never actually seen a Sigma 17-70mm in the flesh before
whilst also adding into the equation Bert's initial conclusion that:

QuoteQuote:
There are two things the 18-250 Tamron specializes in: 1. dust prevention, 2. startup time. You will be prepared for almost every situation.
It would obviously be inappropriate of me to comment on the optical superiority or otherwise of the Sigma 17-70mm, but bear in mind that neither of these are prime lenses. Therefore it may be that the quality of one wins out slightly over the convenience of the other ! All I know is that I have been surprised and delighted by the excellence of the shots I am currently obtaining with my Tamron 18-250mm Di II lens.
Incidentally, although I now have the funds in place to obtain one of Sigma's fantastic 10-20mm DSM superwide-zoom lenses, frustratingly the UK distributors of Sigma have recently been the recipient of not only ONE but unbelievably TWO major break-ins at their warehouse in the last few months. Every well-known photographic store I have contacted is presently out of stock of this lens in Pentax mount, so I have little alternative but to patiently wait in the queue until the next consignment arrives by container from Japan......Grrrrrrr !!!!!

Best regards
Richard

Last edited by Confused; 09-24-2007 at 08:44 AM.
09-25-2007, 02:43 AM   #22
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: near Muenster/Germany
Posts: 8
no sigma 18-125

hands off from sigma 18-125. One of the worst lenses I've seen up to now.
Have a look here: Sigma AF 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC (Pentax K) - Photozone Review / Lab Test Report
09-25-2007, 06:39 AM   #23
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: near Muenster/Germany
Posts: 8
comparing 17-70 with 18-250

are these in quality equal???????
Both have problems at the the lower end.
The hardest argument for the 17-70 is the aperature of 2.8.
But if there is realy no more difference the Tamron would be the better choice.
Who can compare this with corresponding pictures?

09-25-2007, 11:45 PM   #24
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 49
17-70 is considerably better at closeups...

The relative versatility of the lenses depends on if you need telephoto more often or better closeups more often. Quality issues aside, both the minimum focus distance and max magnification of the 17-70 are significantly better than the 18-250.

In my case, I really need my all-around lens to have essentially no limit on how close the subject can be and it needs to have as much magnification as possible (both for shooting my kids and the variety of nature photography I like to do).

Occasionally (quite rarely really), I wished my 17-70 would go past 70mm. But not as often as I need to be a few inches from the subject (especially at wide angle). So the 17-70 is the better all-around choice for me and minimizes lens changes more than the 18-250 would.

If you don't really do closeups that much, or you are fine having to change lenses for better closeups, then the 18-250 might be the better choice. The 18-250 is the obviously better all-rounder for someone who does a lot of animal photography mixed in with general snapping.

The only other thing to consider on the 18-250 is the precipitous drop in magnification for closeup subjects. For instance, the Pentax DA 50-200 has the same magnification at 1.1m that the 18-250 has at 18in. In other words, at 18in subject distance, the 18-250 only goes to about 100mm equivalent FOV. So if you're using the telephoto for sneaking up on nervous bugs or small birds, the 18-250 won't necessarily obviate the need for a conventional telephoto lens like the 50-200.

Bart
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!
aperture, camera, dslr, k10d, photography, polarizer, range, sigma, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shooting high speed objects at close range bymy141 Photographic Technique 9 08-25-2010 05:59 AM
K7 dynamic range question SergioFromSF Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 07-17-2010 08:49 AM
Zooms ending in 250-300mm range Laurentiu Cristofor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 06-13-2010 02:32 PM
Pentax lense 18-250 range test bisolet Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 09-06-2009 02:06 AM
which flash is the best one for me in the price range of 250-350 dolar??? hll Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 1 05-21-2008 07:00 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:37 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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