Tamron 18-200 zoom - is it super?


pgweber

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 14:07
I should be receiving payment of 132.50 fairly soon for a number of pictures published in the railway press over the last year or so.

Coincidentally I noticed this lens available for almost exactly that sum.

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Tamron/Tamron-Pentax-Fit-Lenses/Tamron-18-200...

I have never owned a superzoom (and not saying I will soon, 132.50 might be better spent going towards a 17-70 or a body upgrade), but I wondered if anyone could comment on the pros and cons of this model?
Peter

Pentax K5
Pentax DA 18-55 Mk1, 50-200 (Samsung), 16-45, 55-300 Mk1, 35 f/2.4
Pentax MZ6 + FA28-90, FA50 f/1.4, M 50 f/1.7
Tamron 80-210mm & 28mm

Glowingblue

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 14:57
I used the Tamron 18-200 as my only lens on my Canon 20D for twelve months or so and was perfectly happy, it was my first zoom and I knew no better. You are paying peanuts in reality but you do get a lot of chimp for your money. For a lot of people it may be the only lens they will ever need, with a bit of luck, you too will join that exclusive club.

I very much doubt it though, you'll see the limits of what you have, you will also see the ever prevailing marketing telling you that you need 'this lens' or even 'that lens' which is better than 'this lens' cos it's got a hydro carbon fluid clutch that allows for super quick AF when you see pussy you need to capture (other small mammals are available).

You might want to consider the Pentax 50-200mm? I can't comment on it merits or pitfalls, somebody else may be able to help you. Of course you are sacrificing the wide to zoom comfort the 18-200 gives you.

It's worth every penny, reasonable quality and you at least have the SR of the Pentax body to tighten things up at the long end (I didn't on the Canon and was still impressed). There's also something to be said for buying brand new!

There's a lot to be said for 'sucking and seeing' is there anywhere you can check it out in store?

Good luck!

Regards

Karl

johnriley

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 15:11
The 18-200mm lens was a film era lens. The 18-250mm is much better, and the 18-270mm slightly better again.

The biggest problem with all these lenses is probably the very limited maximum aperture, especially at the longer length. That leads potentially to camera shake problems.

Having said that, they are fantastic travel lenses.
Best regards, John

ChrisA

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 16:17
johnriley wrote:
The 18-250mm is much better, and the 18-270mm slightly better again.

Does the 18-270 barrel at the short end the way the 18-250 does?
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.

pgweber

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 16:33
johnriley wrote:
The 18-200mm lens was a film era lens. The 18-250mm is much better, and the 18-270mm slightly better again.

Your initial comment is in danger of misleading the unwary.

Ok, it was winning awards in 2005. I looked again at the pricebuster & Tamron websites as it sounded like the lens might be useful on my MZ6, however it is a specifically APS-C lens.

One lens to carry when I go cycle touring sounds appealing but I have taken the 16-45, 35, 55-300 and FA50 in the past.

A couple of years ago on holiday in Devon, I bumped the 16-45 enough to jam the focus & zoom mech and that was useless for the rest of the hols. As I had the DA35 with me, it was not too much of a hardship and it was repaired quite easily/cheaply by Johnsons.
Peter

Pentax K5
Pentax DA 18-55 Mk1, 50-200 (Samsung), 16-45, 55-300 Mk1, 35 f/2.4
Pentax MZ6 + FA28-90, FA50 f/1.4, M 50 f/1.7
Tamron 80-210mm & 28mm
Last Edited by pgweber on 27/03/2014 - 16:44

johnriley

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 16:45
I was anticipating the 18-200mm was an older lens like the Pentax version was, but it's quite possible that Tamron made more than one model. In which case, worth checking before you buy.
Best regards, John

johnriley

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 16:48
ChrisA wrote:
johnriley wrote:
The 18-250mm is much better, and the 18-270mm slightly better again.

Does the 18-270 barrel at the short end the way the 18-250 does?

I can't specifically remember, but I wouldn't be surprised. If you look at the review I did (part of the K-5 II review?) at the time the answer may be obvious from the images.
Best regards, John

1stEverPentax

Link Posted 27/03/2014 - 17:02
Haven't used the 18-200 myself although my mother's partner uses one on his Canon EOS 550D. He loves it as a travel lens and has taken it to the Far East three times and all over Europe and in addition he takes his motorhome away many weekends throughout the UK during the Spring/Summer. He has taken some pretty good shots with it and it is quite light for what it is...you could take that one of two ways!

I've got the Tamron 70-300 which is terrific value for money. I paid 129 for mine but you can get them new now for 100 with a 5 yr warranty!! Got to be the photographic bargain of the decade. I honestly don't know how Tamron do it for the money.

At the end of the day, if you tried one and didn't like it you will probably be able to sell it for only 10-15 less than you paid for it...not a lot to gamble really and you'd have had some use of it as well.

TheVicar

Link Posted 01/04/2014 - 20:24
I've had this lens since 2008, been really pleased with it. I would estimate that at least half the pictures I take with my K-30 are with this lens, despite also having 10-17 Fisheye (Samsung version) Sigma 10-20(f4-5.6), & 150-500, plus DA 55-300 & DFA 100 Macro (non WR) to play with.
Criminal waste when you consider the cost of the Tamron against the combined cost of the rest, but it tends to stay on unless I want to go wider, more telephoto, or closer (macro)
In fairness, most of my photography includes plenty of walking & carrying to get there, and I don't make big prints, I'm sure the other lenses would get more of a look in if either of those was the case
ist*DL2, 18-55Mk1, DFA 100 f2.8 Macro, Samsung GX-10, 10-17,18-55,50-200, Sigma 10-20,100-300, 150-500 Tamron 18-200, Jessops 360AFDP
ME Super, MX, 2No. 50mm f1.7, MZ-10, 28-70 f4, 28mm f2.8, Samyang 500 & 800 f8 mirrors, Vivitar 2x TC, K-01, K-30

pgweber

Link Posted 01/04/2014 - 23:07
Thanks to Karl, John, Chris, Karlo & Peter for your thoughts on this lens.

I am weighing towards image quality rather than convenience at present, so the cheque stays in the bank for now.
Peter

Pentax K5
Pentax DA 18-55 Mk1, 50-200 (Samsung), 16-45, 55-300 Mk1, 35 f/2.4
Pentax MZ6 + FA28-90, FA50 f/1.4, M 50 f/1.7
Tamron 80-210mm & 28mm

JAK

Link Posted 02/04/2014 - 00:21
There's plenty of reviews of it on the web. Here's four I found in a quick Google search (there are others too):

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tamron/18200.htm
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Tamron18200mm/
http://www.dpreview.com/products/tamron/lenses/tamron_18-200_3p5-6p3_di_ii
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-18-200mm-f3-5-6-3-af-xr-di-ii-ld-...

At that price it maybe worth a punt for a walk about lens, but don't expect DA* image quality!
John K
Last Edited by JAK on 02/04/2014 - 00:21

galeforce1

Link Posted 06/04/2014 - 09:10
Hi Peter,

I had this particular lens, which I used mainly for railway photography too (until it came to grief after an incident with a frozen metal gate, but I'd rather not be reminded of that). It was a nice lens, with good bright images, but did suffer with a lot of pincussion distortion at 200mm, and there was also a certain amount of 'barrel creep' when carrying it and no way of locking it down.

After breaking it I bought a Pentax 50-200mm WR lens instead and have never regretted that choice, as well as the excellent weatherproofing, I think it gives much nicer images and better quality too. The Tamron is great as a convenient lens which doesn't need changing for wider angle shots, but as you can get get the Pentax for around the same amount I would pick that over it anyday after having used both of them.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.