18mm-200mm for Pentax K-x ?

[macme]

Hi guys,

I'm new to DSLR, just like to seek your kind advises as i wish to get a general purpose and yet can zoom abit lens for my impending k-x thus I was looking at Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical or Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM. can ask, which will be a better choice ? Many thanks!

 

[istDeS]

Both are not available in pentax mount.

Alternative you might want to check out the following choices for Pentax.

Pentax-DA 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3
Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3
Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM

 

[macme]

Both are not available in pentax mount.

Alternative you might want to check out the following choices for Pentax.

Pentax-DA 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3
Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3
Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM

thanks for your speedy replies man! okok, i will keep these models in mind and ask for prices too.

 

[woefulwabbit]

The Tamron 18-270mm VC is not available for Pentax mount. There is a Tamron 18-250mm though, as well as a Tamron 18-200mm.
Sigma has an 18-200mm and a 18-250mm OS HSM.
Pentax used to have a DA 18-250mm which is actually a rebadged version of the Tamron 18-250mm.

If you can find the Pentax 18-250mm at a decent price, I'd go for that. Otherwise the Tamron 18-250mm seems to be the most popular alternative around here.

 

[macme]

The Tamron 18-270mm VC is not available for Pentax mount. There is a Tamron 18-250mm though, as well as a Tamron 18-200mm.
Sigma has an 18-200mm and a 18-250mm OS HSM.
Pentax used to have a DA 18-250mm which is actually a rebadged version of the Tamron 18-250mm.

If you can find the Pentax 18-250mm at a decent price, I'd go for that. Otherwise the Tamron 18-250mm seems to be the most popular alternative around here.

oic, roger that! thanks for your inputs too!

 

[ricsal]

Sorry to hijack, but I saw there is someone selling Tamron 28-300mm F3.5-6.3XR

is it A good choice to get that? but the 18-250 is also a good choice eh? wonder how much is it.

Oh, btw I will be buying Kx tomorrow. Yeah!!

 

[otc]

Play with the kits lens first. There is a dual lens now available. Try that before going for longer zoom.

Welcome, welcome.... to the darkside.

otc

 

[creampuff]

Sorry to side track a bit.
What is it about superzooms that newbies seem to be attracted to like bees to honey?
This is something I can't for the life of me seem to understand because this question keeps cropping up time and time again. One of the key benefits of a SLR/DSLR camera is the ability to change lenses to have different perspectives. I just can't seem to understand this attraction to go for a single lens that seems to promise a lot but in reality come with plenty of trade-offs.

While I'll be the first to admit that I have used a superzoom, it have never really been an altogether satisfying experience thus far. For one thing, superzooms aren't exactly dirt cheap to begin with. There's usually quite a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end and pincushion distortion at the long end. Contrast is pretty average and usually has to be boosted in post processing. Overall sharpness is nothing to shout about with the corners predictably lagging behind the center. There's also likely to be color fringing. Close focusing is not close enough and there's often a reduction in focal length. But the worse compromise is the loss of maximum aperture at the long end. This leads to a dim viewfinder image, has a bearing on shutter speed and ISO, and often noticeable vignetting. Oh did I also mention zoom creep? :angel:

Sorry for this little rant but I just have to purge my system once in a while.
But then who am I to tell anyone how to spend their money?

 

[darrrrrrrrrr]

While I'll be the first to admit that I have used a superzoom

I remember one of the first times I met you at the Arab St outing in 2008 you had a 28-200 lens that you managed to get quite cheaply from your friend

Anyway I agree, even if on paper the superzoom has the same focal length coverage and aperture range as a twin lens kit, the compromises are evident in the images. I had a Tamron 28-300 lens but I sold it quite quickly.

 

[night86mare]

Sorry to side track a bit.
What is it about superzooms that newbies seem to be attracted to like bees to honey?
This is something I can't for the life of me seem to understand because this question keeps cropping up time and time again. One of the key benefits of a SLR/DSLR camera is the ability to change lenses to have different perspectives. I just can't seem to understand this attraction to go for a single lens that seems to promise a lot but in reality come with plenty of trade-offs.

me neither.

i will always advise people to stay away from superzooms.

jack of all trades, always master of none.

of course, you can get good shots with a superzoom.
of course, it's useable.

if it was really cheap, i'd ask all the newbies to get it. i.e. kit lens price range. but it is not. there are far better ways to spend your money, in my honest opinion.

the same applies for compacts, but at least for compacts you have the excuse that you can't change lens... so you want more choice in case.

 

[night86mare]

Hi guys,

I'm new to DSLR, just like to seek your kind advises as i wish to get a general purpose and yet can zoom abit lens for my impending k-x thus I was looking at Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical or Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM. can ask, which will be a better choice ? Many thanks!

just to give you a heads-up, you don't need OS or VC with inbody SR.

there will be this uncle who will tell you that you can turn on OS/VC and turn off SR. you should look around at more of his posts first before deciding whether you want to believe him. :bsmilie:

 

[wildcat]

Sorry to side track a bit.
What is it about superzooms that newbies seem to be attracted to like bees to honey?

Coz we're lazyyyy :embrass:
(me! me! me!)

 

[woefulwabbit]

I think the super-zooms have mostly been popularized by the C/N camp where it's easy enough to get it as a kit lens option and many people do that...

Super-zooms have their uses. For example, when on holiday, the capability to take some landscape shots at 18mm then almost instantly switch to 250mm to get more detail of something interesting in the distant is invaluable, especially if you are a following a tour group and don't have all the time in the world. It's also nice to travel light and carry no more than two, maybe three, lenses.

Of course, given more time and maybe a bigger camera bag, I would prefer to have more lenses at my disposal and to switch between them. But sometimes just have to make do.

Sorry to hijack, but I saw there is someone selling Tamron 28-300mm F3.5-6.3XR

is it A good choice to get that? but the 18-250 is also a good choice eh? wonder how much is it.

Oh, btw I will be buying Kx tomorrow. Yeah!!

The problem with superzooms starting from 28mm is that you lose the wide angle range from 18-28mm, losing quite a bit of flexibility for a lens that is meant to give you flexibility. The 28mm superzooms were really meant for full frame SLRs.

Enjoy your K-x and welcome to the family

 

[pinholecam]

I think you summed up the issues very well.

The only advantage is convenience.
Personally, I would not recommend getting a super zoom at a 'new' price (ie. $600+).
That sort of money is really better spent on a Tamron 17-50/2.8 or 28-75/2.8. Either of the 2 lenses have the focal length, optical quality and speed to deliver 75-85% of pictures that most newbies and casual shooters take. Heck! even a FA35/2 would deliver.
The 'need lots of zoom' part is really part myth and part marketing imho.
Of course I can always understand that a super zoom is easy to understand. It starts short and gets long, like some part of the anatomy )... and we'd always want that to be 'longer'

Sorry to side track a bit.
What is it about superzooms that newbies seem to be attracted to like bees to honey?
This is something I can't for the life of me seem to understand because this question keeps cropping up time and time again. One of the key benefits of a SLR/DSLR camera is the ability to change lenses to have different perspectives. I just can't seem to understand this attraction to go for a single lens that seems to promise a lot but in reality come with plenty of trade-offs.

While I'll be the first to admit that I have used a superzoom, it have never really been an altogether satisfying experience thus far. For one thing, superzooms aren't exactly dirt cheap to begin with. There's usually quite a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end and pincushion distortion at the long end. Contrast is pretty average and usually has to be boosted in post processing. Overall sharpness is nothing to shout about with the corners predictably lagging behind the center. There's also likely to be color fringing. Close focusing is not close enough and there's often a reduction in focal length. But the worse compromise is the loss of maximum aperture at the long end. This leads to a dim viewfinder image, has a bearing on shutter speed and ISO, and often noticeable vignetting. Oh did I also mention zoom creep? :angel:

Sorry for this little rant but I just have to purge my system once in a while.
But then who am I to tell anyone how to spend their money?

 

[sircam]

Of course I can always understand that a super zoom is easy to understand. It starts short and gets long, like some part of the anatomy)... and we'd always want that to be 'longer'

:think: :devil: :bsmilie: :thumbsup: :sweatsm:

 

[Gengh]

Sorry to side track a bit.
What is it about superzooms that newbies seem to be attracted to like bees to honey?
This is something I can't for the life of me seem to understand because this question keeps cropping up time and time again. One of the key benefits of a SLR/DSLR camera is the ability to change lenses to have different perspectives. I just can't seem to understand this attraction to go for a single lens that seems to promise a lot but in reality come with plenty of trade-offs.

No need to be so harsh lah... :sweat:

Having been through the "superzoom stage" myself, I can understand why it holds an attraction for newbies especially. It seems like the lens that gives pretty good bang for the buck in terms of the range it offers. At that point, still haven't realised the value of faster lenses and how superzooms makes all kinds of compromises in terms of IQ.

But it's true that now, with dual kit lens options being so affordable, it really doesn't make sense to go for superzooms if you're getting a new DSLR.

 

[banana0ne]

Heck! even a FA35/2 would deliver.

What's with FA 35/2??? :dunno:

 

[macme]

Guys, Thanks for all the valuable inputs too. I will take note on it. I think i will get the standard kit first then venture zoom or tele lens in future i guess.

 

[poppyer]

No need to be so harsh lah... :sweat:

Having been through the "superzoom stage" myself, I can understand why it holds an attraction for newbies especially. It seems like the lens that gives pretty good bang for the buck in terms of the range it offers. At that point, still haven't realised the value of faster lenses and how superzooms makes all kinds of compromises in terms of IQ.

But it's true that now, with dual kit lens options being so affordable, it really doesn't make sense to go for superzooms if you're getting a new DSLR.

yup. it is not that bad if you can get one with good price. especially if your final output is 4R photo, the differences are not that big. sure for 100% crop pixel peeper, that is another story.

price is the key

 

[Recoil3d]

hmm but the tamron 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 only cost $380 and the sigma version cost $430 ,both are not the one that have VR or SR which obviously cost more :sweat: So this zooms would be cheap for a beginner:dunno: who want convenience and versatility . Im happy with my zoom lens now as i love to frame the shot but i think im gonna get a 50mm 1.4 soon any other reccomendations for a low light lens ?