[Ivo_Spohr]

Has anyone heard rumors or information regarding replacement of the
Pentax SMC DA 18-250mm 3,5-6,3 ED AL 18-250 mm By a new WR lens in this range?

I want to buy a lens like this but not shure if I should wait or buy one of the last available ones.

Please let me have your thoughts

[Rondec]

If there is another lens that comes out in this range, it certainly won't be the exact same range. This lens is made by Tamron and rebaged by Pentax. Unfortunately, Tamron is now make a 18-270 and has stopped making the 18-250. I don't remember Pentax ever really having a super zoom of their own, but it wouldn't suprise me if they released a 18-200-ish lens sometime down the road.

I would get the 18-250 if you can find one. By all accounts it is one of the best super zooms out there and there is no guarantee that a new optical formula will be any better, nor that WR will be added.

[hcc]

Pentax discontinued the DA18-250mm last year. Ever since there have been rumours of a 18-250mm WR lens. But one must remember indeed that the DA18-250mm was a rebadged Tamron lens rather than a Pentax.

Currently the only available lens in that range with a Pentax mount is the newer Sigma 18-250mm OS HSM that is pricy, and for which the OS is not really needed since the Pentax dSLR have IS.

I hope that Pentax will release a new 18-250mm WR, 18-300mm WR or even 28-350mm WR .... Let us wait and see, and hope.

[Parallax]

Currently the only available lens in that range with a Pentax mount is the newer Sigma 18-250mm OS HSM that is pricy, and for which the OS is not really needed since the Pentax dSLR have IS.

I have this lens and it is a great lens. You are right that the internal stabilization is not necessary, but there is a benefit to it. It gives a stabilized image in the viewfinder as well as at the sensor.

[jct us101]

Has anyone heard rumors or information regarding replacement of the
Pentax SMC DA 18-250mm 3,5-6,3 ED AL 18-250 mm By a new WR lens in this range?

I want to buy a lens like this but not shure if I should wait or buy one of the last available ones.

Please let me have your thoughts

Eesh, can you imagine how big that thing would be? I don't even want to know how far out it would have to zoom at that range and still being able to keep its waterproof sealing, it would probably be over a foot of telescoping zoom! It is an interesting idea, but I don't know if it's at all practical is the only problem about that.

Eesh, can you imagine how big that thing would be? I don't even want to know how far out it would have to zoom at that range and still being able to keep its waterproof sealing, it would probably be over a foot of telescoping zoom! It is an interesting idea, but I don't know if it's at all practical is the only problem about that.

I doubt it will be over a foot.

[Supernaut]

I too doubt about the foot, but I see the point. The same problem will be for the 55-300, I think. It also elongates a lot.

[Rondec]

I don't understand. The 16-50 and 60-250 are both weather resistant and don't have internal zoom. I thought there were just gaskets at every telescoping joint that prevented water and dust from entering the lens through those seals. Why wouldn't that be just as possible with an 18-250 or 55-300 lens?

[jct us101]

I don't understand. The 16-50 and 60-250 are both weather resistant and don't have internal zoom. I thought there were just gaskets at every telescoping joint that prevented water and dust from entering the lens through those seals. Why wouldn't that be just as possible with an 18-250 or 55-300 lens?

I'm pretty sure that at least with the DA 18-250mm, it wouldn't be able to create those gaskets since it is a telescoping zoom with two barrels, not one. I'm not sure if the DA 55-300mm uses two barrels since I've never used one.

[Supernaut]

Actually, the 16-50 has two barrels.
Maybe it's not impossible after all. A WR 18-250 (-ish) would attract people to buy into the brand. Now, if only the K-x were sealed, they had a great package to sell

[jct us101]

Actually, the 16-50 has two barrels.
Maybe it's not impossible after all. A WR 18-250 (-ish) would attract people to buy into the brand. Now, if only the K-x were sealed, they had a great package to sell

Maybe Pentax will announce a DA 18-200mm WR to go with the K-5 or whatever when it's released then. That would definitely be something worth upgrading to.

[baldeagle21b]

Maybe Pentax will announce a DA 18-200mm WR to go with the K-5 or whatever when it's released then. That would definitely be something worth upgrading to.

Pentax engineering has traditionally stuck to 3X 0r 4X range on their zoom designs. That could change, but I think a rebadged Tamron is more likely for a 10X zoom range.

[glanglois]

Given the SR test results posted here and DPR (suggesting that Pentax SR is not particularly effective at long focal lengths and higher shutter speeds), is there a significant chance that in-lens stabilization will:

1. Be noticeably more effective than Pentax SR, meaning a stop or two?

2. Improve AF speed and success at long focal lengths because the image falling on the AF sensor is more stable?

I am not happy with the way my Tammy 18-250 hunts at 250mm, sometimes even in bright shade on a high-contrast subject like black iron letters on a near-white stone building. I suspect that the small aperture (f/6.3) is the culprit as most AF systems seem to be designed to a target minimum of about 5.6. I will note, though, that my Pentax 55-300 f/5.8 does not have that trouble - happily focusing in all but the most difficult situations.

I would bite the bullet on a stabilized Sigma just for AF performance I can rely on in a hurry. And for you manual shooters, that isn't an option for me in most situations: the viewfinders on my K-X and K-7 just don't give my eyes enough to work with and I may not have a few seconds to track and the get the focus manually. Think aerobatics.

Can anyone with a stabilized 18-2XX offer a comment on AF with your in-lens stabilization?

[jct us101]

Pentax engineering has traditionally stuck to 3X 0r 4X range on their zoom designs. That could change, but I think a rebadged Tamron is more likely for a 10X zoom range.

Hmm, if they did that then I might actually not want to buy it, the Tamron 18-200mm is probably one of the worst superzoom lenses ever made, while the 18-250mm is one of the best ones.

[Entropy]

Given the SR test results posted here and DPR (suggesting that Pentax SR is not particularly effective at long focal lengths and higher shutter speeds), is there a significant chance that in-lens stabilization will:

1. Be noticeably more effective than Pentax SR, meaning a stop or two?

2. Improve AF speed and success at long focal lengths because the image falling on the AF sensor is more stable?

I am not happy with the way my Tammy 18-250 hunts at 250mm, sometimes even in bright shade on a high-contrast subject like black iron letters on a near-white stone building. I suspect that the small aperture (f/6.3) is the culprit as most AF systems seem to be designed to a target minimum of about 5.6. I will note, though, that my Pentax 55-300 f/5.8 does not have that trouble - happily focusing in all but the most difficult situations.

I would bite the bullet on a stabilized Sigma just for AF performance I can rely on in a hurry. And for you manual shooters, that isn't an option for me in most situations: the viewfinders on my K-X and K-7 just don't give my eyes enough to work with and I may not have a few seconds to track and the get the focus manually. Think aerobatics.

Can anyone with a stabilized 18-2XX offer a comment on AF with your in-lens stabilization?

Definate improvement. I've frequently had "hunting due to excessive caffeination" problems with my Tamron 70-300 and my Bigma at the long end, while AF on my Sigma 18-250 seems to work very well no matter how many Monster Energy Drinks I've downed.

SPIKE Energy, however, is too much for any image stabilization system to handle.