Anyone with 1st hand experience with 18-55 kit & T 24-135 ?

Given the Tamron 24-135 is SP designated and have read some good reviews (give and take sample quality variance), is it right to expect the image quality of the tamron is a notch better than the kit lens?

Well, at least in terms of sharpness and contrast.

Color-wise, pentax is pentax and tamron is tamron (frankly speaking, after thousands of shots with the kit lens, it is hard for me to pinpoint a particular out-of-the-box image with color that really moves me ).

I have the Tamron 24-135mm (picked it up off a USA forum fairly cheap along with the DA 50-200mm) but to be totally honest I am so new at this DSLR lark that I have no idea if it is better or worse than the kit lens at the moment. Sorry

I have both these lenses, though the kit lens is rarely used these days. From my own experience, there is no hard and fast answer to your question. Overall, I'd say the Tamron is slightly sharper and more contrasty than the kit, but not massively, and it is very much depended on the exact circumstances in which you are shooting.

If you are comparing the kit lens at 55mm with the Tamron at 135, then the kit is probably sharper, but factors such as whether you are using a tripod, mirror lock-up, etc. and which aperture you are using will make much more difference than the lens IMHO. It's easier to hand hold and get a sharp shot at 55mm than it is to do the same at 135mm. Used in the middle of their zoom ranges and well stopped down, the Tamron wins, but we're not talking night and day here and good technique will make more difference than which lens you have on.

The Tamron is (for me) a good all-purpose lens. If I am limiting myself to only one lens to carry around, then as often as not it is this one. But, it all depends on what sort of things you take pictures of. I use both the 24-135 and the 16-45 (which I bought to use instead of the 18-55) for different situations, the sharpness/contrast factor of any lens is of far less concern to me than having a useful focal length fitted. Better to get out there taking pictures rather than worrying about small differences in lens performance.

If you have the kit lens and are thinking of getting the 24-135 then I'd say keep the kit lens (you won't get a huge amount of cash for it if you sold it) and use each lens to suit the subject.

Regards,

Duncan

I agree with everybody else re: the Tamron 24-135 and kit 18-55.
They have different uses. Keep both. I rarely use the kit lens as I seldom need to go out to 18mm. but when I do it seems to perform very well.
The only thing I would add re: the Tamron is the weight. Very heavy - coupled to your K100 or K200 you will have a 1.2 Kg combo to carry. Build quality is very good though. Like the proverbial tank.
If you can find one the Pentax FA 24-90 is a good alternative. I got one new from B&H New York a couple of years ago but I see it's no longer available. Downside is, it's much more expensive than the Tamron Optics are great - build quality is lousy. I don't think you would be disappointed with the Tamron.

Hamdala

I don't think the build quality of the 24-90 is lousy. It's only fault, or idiosyncracy, is that the front of the lens tends to wobble. Disconcerting, but it doesn't seem to affect the results, which are superb.

In fact, I'd say that the 24-90 is as good as any zoom lens you can buy. It really is nearly as good as the best prime lenses.

It's not especially cheap, but nor is champagne.

G

I agree with you George re the optics of the 24-90. They are SUPERB - I wouldn't part with mine, but when you can feel that front element rattling around as you carry the camera it doesn't seem like it would take any rough conditions. Now if it were built like that Tamron it would be perfect.

Maybe mine is a poor specimen.

Cheers

Hamdala