Just received after getting this on EBay for quite a reasonable price (£230 incl PKA Tokina doubler, which I reckon is quite good going). Seems to be in mint condition, and it's built like a tank!

I always said I could never justify the Bigma or other large Sigmas because their bulk meant I'd hardly use them, and their price realistically puts them out of my bracket especially if they are going to stay at home most of the time.

I've always been intrigued by the Tokina 80-400 as it is very portable for what it is, and the ability to occasionally stray beyond 300mm without shelling out a fortune is quite compelling.

It's too early to say how good it is as I need a proper play over the weekend, but my initial impressions are that build quality is superb, aside from the zoom lock which seems to be somewhat under-engineered but on the other hand it's still working so what do I know.... Focussing is somewhat slow in poor light indoors, and I'll be interested to see how well it can track moving objects during the day time.

I've deliberately tortured the thing by shooting wide open at 400mm and actually the results are better than I expected (user reviews of this lens are not that easy to come by, and at longer lengths also tend to be somewhat mixed - although my firmly held view is that many people do not know how to use long lenses and mistake their own poor technique for weaknesses in the lens). Stopped down to f8 or so, and it's more than sharp enough. I suspect that if you back off just a little from the 400mm max, it'll probably perform pretty well.

It was too late when I got home tonight to do anything other than shoot the moon, so after all I said about poor technique above, here is a handheld shot: 400mm at f8. 1/160 second at ISO320 - and obviously cropped quite a lot. So far, I reckon, so good. Will compare with the 55-300 over the weekend as I'm not sure I can justify hanging on to both.

It would be useful to know which Nikon and Panasonic cameras you have used. In particular, Panasonic make some of the best compact cameras out there, and I tend to agree with Eduardo that they along with Canon are probably the front runners in compact cameras, plus Ricoh who make some great cameras largely aimed at a more advanced market.

That said, the i10 is a lovely looking camera, and having had a play in a shop the other day, feels quite nicely put together too. I think you are probably paying a premium for its retro design - and in terms of outright image quality from what you can glean from the web I would expect it to perform similarly to other cameras but probably not better.

I think it's a clever move by Pentax to put what I am sure is a competent camera in such a stylish form which makes it stand out from the crowd, and is very desirable. But I would think twice about buying it if your only reason for doing so is to get better image quality.

Nice pics. But shame all the new megaliners are so ugly. None of them have the elegance of the QE2, Canberra, SS France and their ilk from the 60s and 70s. Just enormous floating apartment blocks now.

Agree - all of the three macro's at the 90-105 focal lengths are very fine performers.

I do think quick shift would be nice (even though I have the Tamron), mainly because I think macro lenses are not terribly useful in auto focus mode, and a bit of manual help is almost inevitable. I use the Tamron almost entirely in MF mode, but if I had the Pentax, I might go for AF with a bit of extra assistance from me.

That said, if there is a major price difference, I would have no hesitation recommending the Tamron - it's heritage goes back over a number of fine lenses right back to the model 52B Adaptall lens (in those days only 1:2 but f2.5), all of them good.

Nice shot - and I agree the B&W really works well.

I'm not surprised (saw that Vivitar on the forum: you bought a great lens).

The 18-250 is really very good up to around 100mm or so, and then it's performance starts to drop. A telephoto prime really ought to kill it!

For convenience, the best way of upping quality from the 18-250 is probably to buy the 55-300 for those occasions when you know that longer lengths are going to matter.

Cheers,

Jon

I have owned both.

The Sigma feels much better built, and does not suffer from the zoom creep of the 18-250. It feels like a quality product whereas the 18-250 is obviously built to its price point. The Sigma also has a very good "macro" facility. Barrel distortion at wide angle is not as bad, and nor is vignetting. But both of those can be corrected in PP. I found the colours from the Sigma a little too cool for my liking.

My Sigma was a little sharper than the 18-250, more so around the edges, but you'd have to look carefully to spot much difference between f5.6 - 11 (where I tend to use these lenses) for the focal lengths that they share. At the end of the day, the Sigma replicates the focal lengths where the Tamron performs at its best, so unless you are planning on printing large sizes, I don't think you'd notice terribly much difference.

I'd be interested to hear what disappoints you about the 18-250, which would help to provide a better opinion. But in the end, I decided to keep the superzoom and sell the Sigma. The Tamron is more flexible, better than it has any right to be, and does most things well-enough for when I'm not using primes.

Have to agree about the sales staff in Spectrum. I was interested to see they have a lot of stock, but the sales patter borders on dishonest. They either don't know what they are talking about, or alternatively work on the assumption that their customers don't know what they are talking about.

My favourite photo shop around there is Kingsley Photographic, but they stopped Pentax a while ago. Interesting secondhand collection, and they told me that they are hoping to get it up on their website soon, which would be good.

However, this time it was West End Cameras that happened to have a lens I was interested in - in mint condition it cost less than some severely beaten up examples I saw in Mr Cad a couple of weeks back (that is a shop I would never buy from without going there to see the goods for myself: too many of their items look like they've fallen off the back of a lorry and then been run over by a full double decker bus!).

Hmmm - you've set a tough price at £150 and I don't know whether you'll get the 16-45 for that (great lens though).

I did notice that Ffordes have a 35-105 at £99 which they incorrectly describe as f3.5-4.5. From the photo, it's the constant aperture version, and therefore highly regarded (I am stopping myself from buying it, but it has a great reputation). I think the one downside to this lens is that it is not light, and you talk about "walkabout".

On that topic, I think I'd take issue with the comment that the 30mm f1.4 wouldn't be good for a walkabout lens, or with the idea that you need to supplement it with a zoom....

....my best walkabouts that I enjoy most tend to be with one prime on the camera, and a couple in my pockets. So my suggestion is that you use the Sigma you've got, and supplement it with:

(1) a 50mm f1.7 SMCM if you don't mind fully manual, or SMCA if you do

(2) a 24mm lens. The most cost-effective 24mm tend to be the Tamron Adaptall f2.5 ones (I have one and I am pleased with it), but the Sigma Ultrawide II is the one to get if you can track one down. Pentax 24mm lenses seem to go for more money that I think they are worth.

With luck, you should be able to get both of the above for around £100 or less, in good condition. Which leaves £50 to put towards your next lens!

Good luck, whatever you decide.

Jon

I ended up around Goodge Street and wandered down Tottenham Court Road. What was interesting (well marginally interesting)? Actually, the visibility of Pentax.

I saw:

a few adverts on the escalators in the Tube (for the Kx).
red and white Kx's plus a couple of K-7s.
a load of Pentax lenses at Spectrum (always tend to be quite well stocked)

And loads of the three new compacts, in prominent displays in several of the shops along Tottenham Court Road. Perhaps the fact that they are now a little more eye-catching is helping? Either way, I think there's more Pentax stuff out there now than was the case a few months ago.

One other thing - popped into West End Cameras where I picked up an as-new 35mm SMCM (I really think it has barely been used), and they commented that secondhand Pentax glass flies out the shop now. Not just for Pentax users, but because a lot of the micro four thirds people are using adapters to put them on their cameras too.

I'm wondering whether now the Hoya stuff has settled down, we might begin to see some more effort into marketing and getting product into the shops now.... I'm cautiously optimistic.