[trog100]

yes its horses for courses..

somewhere thow within the overall range of a zoom lens lies the quality of a prime.. the problem with zooms is they get reviewed over all their entire focal lengths.. people perhaps expect too much from them..

the tamron 18 x 200 at around 50mm is hard to tell apart from my pentax 50mm old manual prime without extreme pixel peeping..

and however much of a perfectionist u/we are "good enough" must be the order of the day else we would all still be useing medium or large format cameras and 35mm would not exist let alone our cropped digital versions..

i too like the quality of primes.. but for the very same reason i dont use a medium format digital camera i dont use a bag full of expensive primes..

i do own the odd decent prime so i know the quality differences.. i also know they aint what they are mostly claimed to be.. and just like u i can find fault with any lens.. all u have to do is look close enough..

where convenience and pracaticality take over from the search for perfection i dont know.. he he.. but i do know that at some point it has to..

trog

ps.. and your sign off thingy does kinda jar with your general comment.. the other day i read "a box with a pinhole in it takes pictures" but it lost its point coming from someone who uses an expensive dslr and all the paraphernalia that goes with it.. mind u it was in the dpreview pentax forum.. he he

---

Last edited by trog100; 01-01-2007 at 12:09 PM.

[WMBP]

i have one as my walk around lens.. teamed up with a sigma 70 to 300 they nicely cover most things.. for anything below 150mm the tamron is spot on and anything above that the sigma takes over..

the big overlap in the middle saves too much lens changing..

either way the tamron 18 x 200 is a good starting point.. for what it does there is nothing to touch it really..

Trog, thanks for your responses in this thread and for the excellent examples of what the Tamron lens can do. I've just placed my order. Now I'm wondering what to do with the lenses I already have for my K100D:

1. The kit lens (Pentax 18-55)
2. Pentax 50-200
3. Pentax 75-300

Well, I'll keep the 75-300. But it would seem that, with the Tamron, I no longer need the other two. Right? Might need to figure out where I bought the 50-200 recently and see if I can return it.

Will

[Harald]

yes its horses for courses..

somewhere thow within the overall range of a zoom lens lies the quality of a prime.. the problem with zooms is they get reviewed over all their entire focal lengths.. people perhaps expect too much from them..

??

the tamron 18 x 200 at around 50mm is hard to tell apart from my pentax 50mm old manual prime without extreme pixel peeping..

Hard to believe. Pentax 50mm f:1.4 a@ f:5.6 is same as 18-200mm at 50mm wide open? (wide open at 50mm is ~4.0-5.6?) or both at f:8? I do not think so.

If you compare them both wide open, you compare apples to oranges because picture which is just possible with 50mm wide open may be 3-4 EV underexposed with Tamron.....

And basically aperture is used for adjusting DOF...... thus they should be compered at same aperture too.

and however much of a perfectionist u/we are "good enough" must be the order of the day else we would all still be useing medium or large format cameras and 35mm would not exist let alone our cropped digital versions..

I decide what is good enough according the most demanding end use of pictures. Most of my pictures dont need the extreme quality of primes, but I cannot be sure which one of them will.

If you use your pictures in net (downsized), or print them to max A5 cards and nothing else, you maybe dont need good (read: expensive) zooms or primes. End use is all.

i too like the quality of primes.. but for the very same reason i dont use a medium format digital camera i dont use a bag full of expensive primes..

My "expensive" primes has not yet exceed the price of two good wide aperture zooms at same focal length area :-)

FA 28mm f:2.8, FA 35mm f:2, FA 50mm f.1.4, Tamron 90mm f:2.5 SP, FA 135mm f:2.8, Tamron 180mm f:2.5 SP.

i do own the odd decent prime so i know the quality differences.. i also know they aint what they are mostly claimed to be.. and just like u i can find fault with any lens.. all u have to do is look close enough..

Maybe there is not such a beast existing than a perfect lens :-)
or maybe is, it depends on point of view. My perfect lens is maybe not perfect for you.

where convenience and pracaticality take over from the search for perfection i dont know.. he he.. but i do know that at some point it has to..
trog

It depends... everybody has to decide it themselves. I have been using even MF (645) equipments for a while. Trade out was too much for me and changed back to 35mm.

ps.. and your sign off thingy does kinda jar with your general comment.. the other day i read "a box with a pinhole in it takes pictures" but it lost its point coming from someone who uses an expensive dslr and all the paraphernalia that goes with it.. mind u it was in the dpreview pentax forum.. he he

Well, I have to say that I do not completely agree. :-)

May I explain: You do not take better pictures with more advanced and expensive equipment. They do not make you better photog.

But you shoudnt either use less capable equipment than you need for those pictures you want to take, taking into account their end use. You are not rewarded in this life or after because of the use of less capable gear in your work or hobby than you actually need.

If you need sharp lenses and 10 meg body because your pictures will be enlarged A3+ sizes, you should use them. But this sharp lens or 10meg body dont make you a bit better photographer. :-)

If you dont need expensive gear because the end use of your pictures is net or postcards, maybe it is not a good idea to buy them. Basic ones does the job as well. And you can spend rest your moneys for photosafari. Weak point in this is that you dont look like a pro....;-)

[NLAlston]

Hi all.

I took two quick shots of our driveway area. These pics are nothing to 'write home about', but I was asked to post a couple of photos - and didn't want to wait to do so. I just hope it is enough to show the worthability of this lens. The one pic is of my trailer, and the other is of a woodpile from some felled trees, in the aftermath of damage done by a very bad snowstorm that we all endured, here, a few months ago.

IMGP0202.JPhttps://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=545&stc=1&d=1167683705
IMGP0203.JPGG

I applied just a little 'fill' light, plus a one-step sharpening (in Picasa).

---

Last edited by NLAlston; 01-28-2007 at 02:39 PM.

[trog100]

do what my son did.. put them on ebay.. we have both gone for.. in my case tamron 18 x 200 and sigma 70 x 300.. his case tamron 18 x 200 and tamron 70 x 300..

i never bought them in the first place.. i did buy a tokina 35 x 300 which is due for ebay thow.. nicely made lens but too soft..

trog

ps.. nice pics nlalston allowing for the dull weather conditions.. given a nice blue sky they would look even better..

[trog100]

"If you need sharp lenses and 10 meg body because your pictures will be enlarged A3+ sizes, you should use them. But this sharp lens or 10meg body dont make you a bit better photographer."

our standards differ again it seems.. i think my 6 mega pixel k100 and cheaper zoom lens wil print okay at A3..

my personal viewing is done on my 20 inch widescreen monitor.. this give me a fullscreen image of roughly 16 x 11 inches shown at a resolution of 1680 by 1050.. i use irfanview as my basic viewer..

it resamples and resizes on the fly useing a lanczos filter.. my PC is up to doing this instantly..

i pixel peep my images full size and compare them with the best images there are.. i also agree if u really do need the expensive glass u need it but its mostly for speed and low light abilities..

let me just say my conclusions are arrived at after several thousand shots and much pixel peeping comparing one lens against another.. they are not assumptions..

for postcard or web images i would not even bother with a dslr.. i do not under any circumstance base my image quality on web usage or postcard size prints..

all the images i have posted will print nicely at A3 size.. however my idea of nicely might not be the same as yours..

lets just forget the web image or postcard size print stuff thow please..

if anyone wants some real full size images to look at i am prepared to provide them.. i dont as the norm cos of bandwidth considerations.

the images i posted are also straight from the camera jpegs.. not post process enhanced..

trog

[NLAlston]

OK...here is a very simple pic that I shot, earlier tonight, after picking my daughters up. It isn't much at all, but I wanted to see how well I could capture the multi-colored tower of the building. What do you think? (I, myself, was impressed).

Tamron AF18-200mm
Focal length: 48.0mm
Exposure time: 0.125
ISO: 1600
Mode: program

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=561&stc=1&d=1167721193
IMGP0242-1.jpg

---

Last edited by NLAlston; 01-28-2007 at 02:39 PM.

[joele]

Trog it depends if what you are after for many it is more than just MTF figures at the lenses sweet spot...

I no longer use (and in fact sold my Sigma 18-125) not because of center resolution, as center resolution was great.. But I sold it due to size (my standard walk around now is often just the FA35/2), distortion (my biggest IQ issue with this lens), edge resolution and poor low light performance ability (I prefer a bright lens than resorting to flash)..

As has been said different people have different needs, likes and dislikes, personally I don't compare images by pixel peeping I look at the whole image and like what I get from my current lenses, having worked near this industry I have access to a lot of lenses, and have sold many more than I currently own to settle on what I like...

No one on this forum is attacking you for having different preferences... as was said earlier - horses for courses ;-)

[trog100]

no one is attacking me joele and i have pointed out the size/weight problem with the 18 x 200mm and no its not the best low light lens on the planet.. it is as good as the kit lens thow at the same range.. and a million times better at focal lengths where the kit lens wont go.. he he he

what i do object to is the standard knocking of any super zoom lens.. i feel a lots of new comers to dslr are being given bad advice as a matter of course.. i am attempting to right this wrong in my usual tilting at windmills fashion.. he he

and that pic is a remarkably nice one nlalston keep em coming..

i am having the same tilt at another windmill over here.. he he he

pretty standard thread and comments.. some guy says he needs a longer range lens and gets the pretty useless go with the kit lens advice..

"Walk Around" Lens question - Photography & Digital Camera Forums

trog

[trog100]

my dslr story is simple.. i have been spoilt by the "as near perfect" as there is leica super zoom that panasonic stuck on the end of my fz20 compact..

i took a look at my sons new k100d plus kit lens and 70 x 300 tamron.. he too has been spoilt by compact super zooms even thow his real camera was an olympus E20 with heavy weight 1.4 x tele and huge wide angle add on lenses in an attempt to extend its range..

his new k100 is a lightweight compared to his E20.. he he he

i took one look at his new gear and said nice but no way am i gonna carry that lot about..

sooo i went for the k100 and tamron 18 x 200.. he liked my 18 x 200 and ebayed his 18 x 55 kits lens..

i liked his tamron 70 x 300 and extended my range with the sigma equivalent..

we both have been struck by LBA and have gone thru many lenses trying to arrive at something that covers our needs..

our needs well.. good image quality.. something that will print A3.. something that is practical and usable.. but above all.. something that will be on the camera when we need it..

our needs are pretty extensive to be honest.. he he.. macro thru to 300mm plus.. after all this LBA stuff we both arrived at the best overall combination as being the 18 x 200 and the 70 x 300.. plus the odd manual prime for low light performance.. plus the odd prime macro.. he he he

i laugh at my sons huge lens bag.. and we both know that we cant carry it all.. he he.. but we think we can carry the 18 x 200 and possible the 70 x 300 to help it when need..

by big fear is that i leave the lot at home and just carry my fz20..

trog

[joele]

yes I had an fz20 too..