Pentax 18-250 or Tamron 18-250


browngo1

Link Posted 30/11/2007 - 11:19
Does anyone on the forum have experience of the Pentax DA 18-250?

I'm going to Japan on 15th December for 2 weeks and thought I'd look at duty free prices for an 18-250.

The Japanese online price at the moment is around 285.00 for the Pentax and the Tamron is about 20.00 less, so I'm hoping I might get either for a bit less when I'm over there.

Just wondered if there's any reason to be looking at the Tamron at all, given the price difference?
Gordon
---------
K10D

Kim C

Link Posted 30/11/2007 - 11:30
With such a small price difference, I would probably go for the Pentax. Not because there is very much difference performance wise but Pentax badged lenses tend to have a much higher resale value.

Kim

johnriley

Link Posted 30/11/2007 - 11:53
Quote:
Pentax badged lenses tend to have a much higher resale value.

This is very true. Just look at the prices being obtained for M and A series lenses on eBay and then compare them with independent lenses. The Pentax ones always sell, often sell at good prices. The others get very little interest unless they are certain specific highly-valued lenses.
Best regards, John

hotshots4u2c

Link Posted 30/11/2007 - 18:30
browngo1.

I have the Tamron, very happy with it.

The Tamron made Pentax is supposed to have their extra coating on the glass ?

This is a keeper for me, so not a bit worried about re-sale value, in any event I don't think there would be much difference.

The bottom line for me was price (I purchased mine for $400.00 new with a UV filter) The lowest price on the Pentax $500.00.

Buying either in Japan, I would be more concerned about the warranty and the customs duty than I would about re-sale.

Not only that, in my opinion the Tamron is a much better looking lens.
(If you are into looks)

Cheers, RG.

simonkit

Link Posted 30/11/2007 - 18:47
If buying in the UK I would definitely say go with the Tamron, simply not worth paying the difference for what is basically a badge

Infact if you plan to keep the lens for some time the Tamron 6yr warranty may prove valuable

simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com

My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk

Find me on Google+ link

Mongoose

Link Posted 30/11/2007 - 22:49
Price difference as it is here, I'd go for the Tamron

For a difference of 20, I'd go for the Pentax.
you don't have to be mad to post here



but it does help

amilner

Link Posted 03/12/2007 - 11:28
Just thought I would let you know that my Pentax version arrived today (Chris posted it last Monday I think but Italian post aint great).

Very first impressions
i) feels well built and operates smoothly
ii) smaller (when retracted) but heavier than my 16-45
iii) MF has that oddly 'grindy' feel designed into it, that i remember from the days when I used a Tamron 24-135 but that makes for a more positive 'feel'. Focusing ring is a decent size. Travel is short (about 60)but MF is relatively easy to use.
iv) no ability to use MF in AF mode like other DA lenses. Also no little 'window' in the lens hood for ease of adjusting polarising filters.

A couple of quick test shots at 250mm at F8 (handheld, with SR, running at about 1/350) shows pretty good sharpness, but noticable CA. It is quite easy to eliminate the CA in the Pentax Lab software.

Looking through the viewfinder at 18mm suggests barrel distortion is modest and regular. Even the 16-45 is significantly less than perfect in this area.

Now I only need to take one lens when I return to England for Christmas!
Tony Milner
Super A, ME Super, MZ6, K5II, Ricoh GR & lenses from 8-500mm
www.amilner.org www.flickr.com/photos/tonymilner

browngo1

Link Posted 03/12/2007 - 11:32
Thanks for the feedback Tony.

I think I'll probably go for the Pentax. I like the idea of not having to carry 2 or 3 lenses about everywhere. Might even try and buy one early in my trip to Japan for that reason.
Gordon
---------
K10D

hotshots4u2c

Link Posted 03/12/2007 - 17:24
amilner.

Glad you like the Tamron 18-250mm. I have it and believe it's a great lens.

Seems to me so many DSLR owners get carried away with a pot full of lenses, some also get a bit snobby when it comes to using big zooms.

Fact of the matter is most of the time one can end up with a really good image with all the available software, no matter what the lens. There is not too much one can't manipulate. DxO is a prime example, if one has a lens on their list.

I would bet most of the images posted on this forum have been adjusted in some way.

I love digital, however it is certainly not a pure form of photography.
Now we can go shoot a project, take 5000 plus images and pick out the best basic shots, adjust and bingo. We don't have to be very careful anymore, pick the right subject and fire away. For the vast majority, very unlike film, due to the cost.

So why not use one good old big zoom most of the time. Now I can kind of chuckle when I am out with just this set-up and the other guy is lugging around 500 pounds of gear, missing shot after shot sorting through his portable lens store for just the right one !!!!!!!!

Enjoy your Tamron, or the fake Pentax version.

Cheers, RG.

simonkit

Link Posted 03/12/2007 - 21:07
hotshots4u2c wrote:
amilner.

Glad you like the Tamron 18-250mm. I have it and believe it's a great lens.

Seems to me so many DSLR owners get carried away with a pot full of lenses, some also get a bit snobby when it comes to using big zooms.

Fact of the matter is most of the time one can end up with a really good image with all the available software, no matter what the lens. There is not too much one can't manipulate. DxO is a prime example, if one has a lens on their list.

I would bet most of the images posted on this forum have been adjusted in some way.

I love digital, however it is certainly not a pure form of photography.
Now we can go shoot a project, take 5000 plus images and pick out the best basic shots, adjust and bingo. We don't have to be very careful anymore, pick the right subject and fire away. For the vast majority, very unlike film, due to the cost.

So why not use one good old big zoom most of the time. Now I can kind of chuckle when I am out with just this set-up and the other guy is lugging around 500 pounds of gear, missing shot after shot sorting through his portable lens store for just the right one !!!!!!!!

Enjoy your Tamron, or the fake Pentax version.

Cheers, RG.

Interesting post,
I have to agree that there certainly does seem to be some "snobbery" towards the use of "superzooms" - much of which seems a bit unfounded when looking at the 18-250, the reviews all rate it quite highly.

However, as with most things in life some compromise is involved. Whilst the 18-250 sounds good it's obviously not going to achieve the image quality comparable to primes and the "higher end" zooms. For this reason I can certainly understand why certain photographers prefer to carry a selection of lenses and choose the most suited for their requirements.

Much depends on end-use & lets be honest, many images from P&S cameras are pretty much indistinguishable from DSLRs when viewed on the www or printed 6x4 inch.

It's very much "horses for courses" so give the guys lugging all that gear around a break, as if the back ache isn't enough

Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com

My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk

Find me on Google+ link

Daniel Bridge

Link Posted 03/12/2007 - 21:16
hotshots4u2c wrote:
I would bet most of the images posted on this forum have been adjusted in some way.

I love digital, however it is certainly not a pure form of photography.
Now we can go shoot a project, take 5000 plus images and pick out the best basic shots, adjust and bingo. We don't have to be very careful anymore...

Some would probably disagree.

When you say 'adjusted', what do you mean? And do you mean for photography to be 'pure', you need to take as few photos of a subject as possible?

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...

hotshots4u2c

Link Posted 03/12/2007 - 23:04
SK and DB.

I had the Sony 1000 when it first came out and I can assure you I printed many great images 8X!0 and had them printed much larger and they still looked great. Have used every decent P&S and most bridge camera's with similar results.

Although I will probably never go back to it 35mm film and the darkroom, it is pure photography. One had to take much more care when shooting and developing and the best guys were pure talent. Yes you could work for National Geographic like one guy I know of, still shoots nothing but film, taking thousands of images per assignment. Try that out of your own pocket book. This guy is a rarity in todays world of pro's.

With digital one can adjust or cheat like crazy with a couple of fingers in a few minutes, not only that but many images don't even remotely look like the original. I look at some of the images winning competitions and I honestly don't know what the hell they shot, or what the judges were smoking.

That's what I mean.

Cheers, RG.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 03/12/2007 - 23:05
I don't know how Cartier-Bresson and his mates managed all those wonderful pictures with just a single snobby prime lens. They were no doubt analogishly manipulated.

Think what HCB could have done with a super-zoom. Of course, he'd have been too far away to see people's expressions (and if he'd got any closer that massive lens would have scared them off).

The fact is that all lenses have their strengths and weaknesses. Those of us fortunate enough to own good primes relish the quality they provide. However, when strolling around a foreign city I do appreciate the convenience of a zoom for taking holiday snaps.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Daniel Bridge

Link Posted 03/12/2007 - 23:54
hotshots4u2c wrote:
With digital one can adjust or cheat like crazy with a couple of fingers in a few minutes...

Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. 'Pure' photography depends on the photographer, not the medium.

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...

Don

Link Posted 04/12/2007 - 00:06
there's personal preferences...I wouldn't use the word "Cheating".
that's kinda like saying people who have automatic transmissions, aren't really driving, all the while forgetting, your great grandfather had to use a crank to start his engine, and would've balked at the idea of hooking up a starter motor and power assisted steering and braking as "cheating" oneself out of the true experience of driving! (That not motoring...how can you "Feel the road" with all that crap, and clean hands to boot?).
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.