Tamron 18-300Dii any good?

This is my first post here, depsite having used Pentax SlRs (ME super, P50, MZ10) since I was a teenager (mid 30's now), I have only recently in the last 4 years got seriously into my photography, after buying an ist DS. Its taken me this long to find this forum - but seems like a nice lively community.

Have taken delivery of a new K10D today (must be one of the last few 'new' stock in the UK I guess), along with a new AZ360 flash and a new Tamron 18-200mm Dii lens (all at a price that was hard to resist - lets just say it cost the same as a 2nd hand body on ebay - all 100% above board from a well know camera dealer). Now (and getting to the point) is this lens worth keeping hold of?

I currently use a Sigma 17-70 as my walk around lens, and have an old 50mm 1.4, and old Vivitar 135mm f2.8 (which is actually really nice - gives a lovely filmic quality to its shots) and if I want some extra reach a Sigma 100 to 300mm (this gets used very very rarely) - so essentially I dont need the extra reach of the Tamron - should it stay or should it go? (and if it goes, what do you reckon might be a good asking price) (same goes for the flash - I dont really ever use ttl, and have 4 or 5 Nikon Sb flashes I sue off camera with some skyports).

Cheers
Andy

Hi Andy

Welcome to the forum.

I'm a great believer is using only Pentax lenses, for reasons of consistency of colour balance, positioning of controls for faster operation, image quality, compactness and better resale values for a start. On the other hand, two lenses we can afford to have will be more useful than just one lens that breaks the bank. So there is a balance that only you can decide on.

Why not try the lenses you have, discover their strengths and weaknesses and then you'll be in a better position to know what you want next. If that means getting a new set of lenses, then so be it and the unwanted ones can always go to eBay!

Thanks John.

I totally agree with your comments about finding lenses which completely suit not only your style, but also have the right functionality and feel. I am very fond of my 50mm, and the Vivitar 135mm is a recent gem I discovered in my film SLR box. The Sigma was bought as a replacement for the kit lens that came with the DS (18-55mm - too soft, and lots of purple fringing) and has been the lens that has mainly been on my camera for the last 9 months or so.

Decided to stick the Tamron on ebay as its not going to get used.

I don't think it's usual for the 18-55 to exhibit much PF on the K10D, nor any particular softness. I use the kit lens quite a bit, and I've seen neither of these problems.

Chris - interesting. Might give it a go try and see what it looks like- its currently languishing in a box somewhere.

I half agree and half disagree with Chris; my DA18-55 has never been prone to any really noticable PF (except when pushed to extremes), but it is noticably soft when used wide open. I get around this by making sure it's always stopped down by at least 1EV from the maximum aperture - then it sharpens up quite considerably.

Like all budget lenses, the trick is in finding where its strengths and weaknesses lay and then play up to the strengths.

I wouldn't disagree with this at all. Lots of lenses are a bit soft wide open though, which is why I referred to "particular" softness. And there's a little PF too, if you really work hard to achieve it.

But compared with the unpleasant PF that the Tamron 70-300 is prone to, for instance, the Pentax kit lens displays a negligible amount.

So sure, it's a budget lens, there's some softness wide open - and if you inspect the high contrast edges at 100%, you can sometimes see a bit of purple.

But IMO there's not enough of either to remark on it as a problem, on the K10D anyway.

I concur. I don't think of mine as a "problem" lens (and your comparison to the Tamron's PF is very apt), in fact for the money I think it's remarkably good!

The reason I pointed out it was soft wide open is because we don't know how the OP likes to use his lenses - some like to shoot with their lenses at their widest aperture at all times and the 18-55 can be very unforgiving of that sort of behaviour, hence he came to the conclusion that it was soft.

Noticed the softness with the 18-55 wide open - cant say that when I was using it I ventured much beyond that. Would be interesting to do a comparison at the apetures I tend oto use nowadays (f5.6 upwards) and see what I get.

It's quite possible that sample variation is common on kit lenses, considering their cost maybe not too much time is spent on QC. I must admit my 18-55 was very poor & spoilt my move from Prosumer to DSLR a while ago..fortunately I replaced it with a Sigme 17-70 & the capabilities of the camera became impressively evident

simon

Most lenses are soft wide open, even some of the very best. And even the 31 Ltd, one of the greatest lenses ever made, can be made to show purple fringing.

The 18-55 is a very good lens for the money, and,as Hefty says, learn its linmitations, and play up to the strengths.

G