Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 9, 2010, 8:24 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 34
Default New K-x Owner and a Questions about Lenses or Tamron Lens

I am a relatively new K-y owner and I have a question about a couple of Tamron lenses.

I have looked at the 18-200mm Tamron lens and seen that Tamron is offering a $60 rebate on it. Shopping around that would bring the price of the lens to about $229 after the rebate.

The K-x I bought came with the 2 lens kit, and so I was thinking about having just one lens to replace both and use when traveling.

I'm looking for opinions on the lens or whether it would just be better to put the money towards the Tamron 18-250mm lens.

Apart from having a larger zoom, is there a quality difference between the two that would merit the additional cost?
iankh is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 9, 2010, 9:00 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mount Shasta, California
Posts: 1,525
Default

I have used the Tamron 18-250 extensively on the Kx. As a newspaper reporter, it is my walkaround lens. With the Kx high ISO abilities, the Tamron also functions well in low light. I find it to be the perfect all around lens.
pboerger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2010, 11:32 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pboerger View Post
I have used the Tamron 18-250 extensively on the Kx. As a newspaper reporter, it is my walkaround lens. With the Kx high ISO abilities, the Tamron also functions well in low light. I find it to be the perfect all around lens.
I wonder how the 18-200mm stacks up? The $229 after rebate price seems very attractive, but I wonder if the lens is inferior to the 18-250mm?
iankh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2010, 1:43 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

I don't have either lens, so can only judge by what I've read around here. The 18-200 lens is an older design (from what I've read) and isn't as well regarded. The 18-250, on the other hand, is very well regarded for a super-range lens and a good choice if you are willing to give up a little quality to have the convenience of one lens. Any lens that covers that great of a range (from wide angle to long telephoto) is a compromise - the optics for wide angle are different than for a telephoto.

The lens isn't fast (you'll need a flash indoors), it's quality, which is quite good, won't match a series of prime lenses, but the quality/convenience ratio is excellent.

Which of the longer lenses do you have? I'm not convinced that the 18-250 would match the image quality of the DA 55-300 (it would come close), but I think it would equal DA 50-200 (and would surpass my copy of the lens, which I wasn't impressed with).
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2010, 7:33 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtngal View Post
I don't have either lens, so can only judge by what I've read around here. The 18-200 lens is an older design (from what I've read) and isn't as well regarded. The 18-250, on the other hand, is very well regarded for a super-range lens and a good choice if you are willing to give up a little quality to have the convenience of one lens. Any lens that covers that great of a range (from wide angle to long telephoto) is a compromise - the optics for wide angle are different than for a telephoto.

The lens isn't fast (you'll need a flash indoors), it's quality, which is quite good, won't match a series of prime lenses, but the quality/convenience ratio is excellent.

Which of the longer lenses do you have? I'm not convinced that the 18-250 would match the image quality of the DA 55-300 (it would come close), but I think it would equal DA 50-200 (and would surpass my copy of the lens, which I wasn't impressed with).

I have the 2 kit lenses the DA L 18-55mm & 50-200mm Lenses. I did also invest in good prime lens the SMC P FA Lens - 50 mm - F/1.4, which is a lens I love.

I had thought that it might be better to travel with 2 lenses instead of 3.

The rebate bringing the price of the 18-200mm down to about $229 what was got me thinking, but if the quality really isn't good then it might not be such a bargain.
iankh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2010, 7:52 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

I look at it this way, For example allot of people like the tamron 18-270mm lenses. And have received great reviews form allot of published mags, and have won awards. But if you are willing to live with the compromise for something that fits your need, then it is a good compromise. I do not think that the IQ is that dramatically worse with a one lens solution for traveling. And I doubt the majority of us will even notice the difference. So if the reviews all point to it as a good lens, it most likely is. If it was a dog according to all reviews then stay clear of it. If you are looking to top notch performance then a 2 or 3 lens travel set is what you may want. But if you want good photos where you will not notice the short coming. Then that may be a good compromise lens for you.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2010, 8:34 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi iankh,

If I were in your position, I'd be looking to either extend your Focal Length (FL) coverage, or gain some performance advantage from faster and/or better optics.

The Tamron 18-200 addresses neither of these objectives, but it would allow access to the full FL range that you already have without any lens changes. There's definitely a value to convenience, but with the new dust shedding coatings and in-camera dust detection and removal systems, lens changing is not nearly the problem it was perceived as in the early days (just 6 or 7 years ago for the affordable ones. . .) of DSLRs. Both of the kit lenses are small enough that you can easily carry both without having to carry a bag, and the Tamron only has a 4 oz advantage in weight over the two kit lenses combined. Optically, I'd venture to say that the two kit lenses offer better Image Quality (IQ) throughout the range, and the 50-200 is a bit faster and sharper wide open at the long end.

I'd suggest that you analyze your lens use and see what's available to get you better performance and IQ. There's an often cited program that you can use for this, Exposure Plot:

http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html

It's freeware, and can plot graphs showing your most commonly used FLs and settings. Using this program is usually a revelation for a shooter. If you use the whole FL range that's available to you, then good for you, you're a generalist, and perhaps the 18-200 is a reasonable choice, or perhaps better yet the 18-250 from either Pentax or Tamron (they're the same lens) which is usually rated a bit higher.

Most people fall into one of three very general categories. Some see in vistas -- take in the scene as a whole and want to capture all of it in each shot. These usually gravitate to wide and ultrawide angle lenses. Some see details within the entire scene and want to capture individual elements in greater detail. These usually go with either telephoto FLs (over 200mm) or dedicated macros. The third shoot people mostly, and usually choose in the mild wide to mild tele range (35mm-135mm).

If you see you shoot mostly wide (under about 35mm, say) then you might gain something by either going wider or possibly just getting something faster in the range you prefer. If you shoot mostly at the long end, you might gain by getting something longer and/or faster in the tele range. If you shoot people, faster means greater control over Depth of Field (DOF) as well as being able to shoot in an even wider range of lighting conditions than you can with the very capable Kx. These faster lenses are usually also sharper at equivalent apertures.

To sum up, I think you would be better served by a lens(es) that would give you better performance in the FL range you prefer. The Tamron 18-200 would only replace your current lenses with a single lens that only adds convenience -- considered this way, $229 might not be as good a deal as it originally looked. Try analyzing your lens use and then get back to us with more specific needs. I'm sure there are many who would be willing to share their experiences with a wide variety of lenses.

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2010, 8:34 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
nhmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Posts: 5,202
Default

I'm no pro on lenses. I have the K20 with the 18-55, 50-200 and the 50mm 1.4. I, too, was looking about a year ago for a one lens solution for just carrying around all the time. I was trying to keep the price down and had looked at the 18-200, but found too many reviews that didn't recommend it.

If you can afford the extra $100 I'd get the 18-250. I haven't regretted purchasing mine. It does need extra help in low light. But, so wouldn't the 18-200.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Patty

p.s. There isn't a Tamron 18-270 and won't be from what Tamron e-mailed me a year or so ago.
nhmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2010, 9:39 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snostorm View Post
Hi iankh,

If I were in your position, I'd be looking to either extend your Focal Length (FL) coverage, or gain some performance advantage from faster and/or better optics.

The Tamron 18-200 addresses neither of these objectives, but it would allow access to the full FL range that you already have without any lens changes. There's definitely a value to convenience, but with the new dust shedding coatings and in-camera dust detection and removal systems, lens changing is not nearly the problem it was perceived as in the early days (just 6 or 7 years ago for the affordable ones. . .) of DSLRs. Both of the kit lenses are small enough that you can easily carry both without having to carry a bag, and the Tamron only has a 4 oz advantage in weight over the two kit lenses combined. Optically, I'd venture to say that the two kit lenses offer better Image Quality (IQ) throughout the range, and the 50-200 is a bit faster and sharper wide open at the long end.

I'd suggest that you analyze your lens use and see what's available to get you better performance and IQ. There's an often cited program that you can use for this, Exposure Plot:

http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html

It's freeware, and can plot graphs showing your most commonly used FLs and settings. Using this program is usually a revelation for a shooter. If you use the whole FL range that's available to you, then good for you, you're a generalist, and perhaps the 18-200 is a reasonable choice, or perhaps better yet the 18-250 from either Pentax or Tamron (they're the same lens) which is usually rated a bit higher.

Most people fall into one of three very general categories. Some see in vistas -- take in the scene as a whole and want to capture all of it in each shot. These usually gravitate to wide and ultrawide angle lenses. Some see details within the entire scene and want to capture individual elements in greater detail. These usually go with either telephoto FLs (over 200mm) or dedicated macros. The third shoot people mostly, and usually choose in the mild wide to mild tele range (35mm-135mm).

If you see you shoot mostly wide (under about 35mm, say) then you might gain something by either going wider or possibly just getting something faster in the range you prefer. If you shoot mostly at the long end, you might gain by getting something longer and/or faster in the tele range. If you shoot people, faster means greater control over Depth of Field (DOF) as well as being able to shoot in an even wider range of lighting conditions than you can with the very capable Kx. These faster lenses are usually also sharper at equivalent apertures.

To sum up, I think you would be better served by a lens(es) that would give you better performance in the FL range you prefer. The Tamron 18-200 would only replace your current lenses with a single lens that only adds convenience -- considered this way, $229 might not be as good a deal as it originally looked. Try analyzing your lens use and then get back to us with more specific needs. I'm sure there are many who would be willing to share their experiences with a wide variety of lenses.

Scott
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhmom View Post
I'm no pro on lenses. I have the K20 with the 18-55, 50-200 and the 50mm 1.4. I, too, was looking about a year ago for a one lens solution for just carrying around all the time. I was trying to keep the price down and had looked at the 18-200, but found too many reviews that didn't recommend it.

If you can afford the extra $100 I'd get the 18-250. I haven't regretted purchasing mine. It does need extra help in low light. But, so wouldn't the 18-200.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Patty

p.s. There isn't a Tamron 18-270 and won't be from what Tamron e-mailed me a year or so ago.
Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

I tend to agree that the 18-200 other than offering one lens provides nothing more in either range or quality.

Interestingly enough I do tend to shoot mostly people, and in analyzing a sampling of folders I seem to be in the 40 to 125mm range mainly. I know I also prefer to not use a flash unless I absolutely have to. This is probably why, in the very short time I've owned the K-x I like my 50mm f/1.4 prime lens.

The more I say, and given the reviews of the 18-200 it is not the lens for me.
iankh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2010, 7:27 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
mole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,522
Default

Lots of very useful comments here. Just to add a few more (hopefully also somewhat useful) words... I use the Tamron 18-250 a lot - am usually outdoors, often in dusty, windy or damp places where I'd rather not risk getting even more dirt on the sensor by changing lenses. It usually works well for my purposes, and is often available used at a reasonable price. But I have recently purchased a few other used lenses, and find that several of them have better IQ, particularly better sharpness, than the 18-250. For portrait distances, I have especially enjoyed an old Pentax A 70-210. It's manual focus, but very sharp and very nice color rendition. Mine was a used, bargain grade copy from KEH for $65.
mole is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:51 PM.