K-r works well with Tamron AF 18-200MM F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)?


Oct 8, 2010
80
0
0
#1
Hi. Any bros/sis here have used the Tamron AF 18-200MM F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) on their K-r?
How is the performance of this lens on the K-r?
Thanks! :)
 

Jun 24, 2011
93
0
0
#2
I wonder abt the same lens too but the lack of review ended in me getting the pentax da 18-135mm wr zoom lens.
 

MarineX

Deregistered
Dec 25, 2009
462
0
0
#3
Hi. Any bros/sis here have used the Tamron AF 18-200MM F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) on their K-r?
How is the performance of this lens on the K-r?
Thanks! :)
good for being versatile

bad for image quality especially on the far reach.

no only on K-r, any cameras will suffer the same due to the superzoom capability

you gain some, lose some.

the more zoom, the worst it will gets (usually)

thus, there is why some people only gets prime lens. :)
 

one952

New Member
Jun 10, 2010
145
0
0
#4
i got the 18-200 in my bag and the 50mm on the camera almost 90% of the time.

18-200 is a very convenient lens, you get wide all the way to zoom in one lens. but yes, you lose out on the picture quality.
But again, I feel if you dun go all the way to the far end, the result is actually very respectable.

you can't have best of both world right.
But for me 18-200 is good enough since it's just a lens i use like 10% of the time.
and I'm not someone who like to carry 3-4 lens out.
so all I have is a 50mm on the body plus a 18-200 in the bag, just in case. :)
 

detritus

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,922
3
0
shootingbugs.blogspot.com
#5
i would rather get a lens with shorter zoom but more respectable speed and image quality over the whole range, like the highly regarded sigma 17-70 or the pentax 18-135.

with lenses, u usually get what u pay for...
 

Jun 24, 2011
93
0
0
#6
Yes 18-135mm's image quality is only passable at best... The greatest strength is the quiet motor, no zoom creep and water resistance.

Also take my comment with a pinch of salt, for I'm only an beginner at best.
 

Last edited:

detritus

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,922
3
0
shootingbugs.blogspot.com
#7
Yes 18-135mm's image quality is only passable at best... The greatest strength is the quiet motor, no zoom creep and water resistance.

Also take my comment with a pinch of salt, for I'm only an beginner at best.
the 18-135, i find, is a reasonable compromise - its small, light, WR, offers reasonable max aperture over the entire zoom range and features the new DC motor which i hear, gives faster AF.

the so-so IQ, distortion and other stuff comes with any superzoom package. i just find it too expensive for a superzoom.

anyway, zoom range is over-rated. i'm happy to take an 18-55WR on a holiday and use the pop-up flash with a cheap diffuser if i have to. smaller, lighter, sharper.

beats lugging around a superzoom where only half the range is useful, is heavier and offers only so-so IQ.
 

GSiGuy

New Member
Sep 14, 2010
1,143
0
0
#8
Yes 18-135mm's image quality is only passable at best... The greatest strength is the quiet motor, no zoom creep and water resistance.

Also take my comment with a pinch of salt, for I'm only an beginner at best.
i'd have to respectfully disagree with the portion i highlighted in red.

i won't say it's prime quality. i won't say its's DA*16-50/50-135 quality. but in no way is it "passable at best"; i've taken it along with a tamron 28-75 F2.8 on a trip before, taking portraits in different situations. It does not lose out by much. Apart from getting more background blur for subject/background separation, i actually find little difference and it's alot more "forgiving" as the smaller aperture openings make for wider DOF and you are less likely to wonder if you have enough f-stop to get a group picture totally clear. useful when you have a short time window to make the shot.

And when trying to take shots of people on a stage whilst standing 10 people deep, the max focal length just about gets me more close ups when no 18-55 nor 28-75 is gonna...
 

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,927
84
48
#9
Review of the 18-135 here:
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/thre...5.6-ED-AL-IF-DC-WR?highlight=da+18-135+review

This is really a nice lens. A bit pricey in real money terms but not pricey in terms of value.
Weather sealing (so resistance to dust thrown up by cars/trucks in dusty roads or water thrown at you by the sea or Thai water festival for example, all these are real situations that the lens can be useful in)
The close focus is really good.
The size is almost the size of the 18-55 kit lens. The ease of carrying and lack of encumbrance for a 18-135mm is not what any Tom Dick Harry lens can give (other brands included.
All these either cost money or is worth some added value (eg. ease to bring along).

Image quality is good for this lens. Cannot agree with the 'passable' comment.
The images in the review speaks for themselves.
 

Last edited:

felixcat8888

Senior Member
May 8, 2005
9,262
17
38
52
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#10
Yes 18-135mm's image quality is only passable at best... The greatest strength is the quiet motor, no zoom creep and water resistance.

Also take my comment with a pinch of salt, for I'm only an beginner at best.
How many times have you used it? I used it for my family holiday in June to Penang and managed to capture wonderful photos of the sunrise and sunset including street photos.
 

Jun 24, 2011
93
0
0
#11
I used it twice so far. Once is to shoot the fireworks during the recent ndp rehearsal. Another is during a walk at punggol. Shooting birds, dragonflies, flowers and etc.
 

Jun 24, 2011
93
0
0
#12
pinholecam said:
Review of the 18-135 here:
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/threads/884563-Review-of-the-SMC-Pentax-DA-18-135mm-F3.5-5.6-ED-AL-IF-DC-WR?highlight=da+18-135+review

This is really a nice lens. A bit pricey in real money terms but not pricey in terms of value.
Weather sealing (so resistance to dust thrown up by cars/trucks in dusty roads or water thrown at you by the sea or Thai water festival for example, all these are real situations that the lens can be useful in)
The close focus is really good.
The size is almost the size of the 18-55 kit lens. The ease of carrying and lack of encumbrance for a 18-135mm is not what any Tom Dick Harry lens can give (other brands included.
All these either cost money or is worth some added value (eg. ease to bring along).

Image quality is good for this lens. Cannot agree with the 'passable' comment.
The images in the review speaks for themselves.
Actually I bought it becos I read your review and u r using a k-5 but I'm using a k-r.
 

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,927
84
48
#13
Actually I bought it becos I read your review and u r using a k-5 but I'm using a k-r.
Lol :)
Use it more.
Any problems, you can post here with your problem shots. ;)

Still got problems, can always look me up during the outings. :)
 

GSiGuy

New Member
Sep 14, 2010
1,143
0
0
#14
+1

I've had good pictures, i've had bad pictures come out of this lens. All too often i reckon it would be the same for any photographer using any lens or any camera. It all depends on the light you get...

... and i'm using a k-x.
 

airconvent

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2005
4,777
0
36
#15
I have the Pentax 18-250mm. Its a great versatile lens but not too good in low light. But on holiday, you can't beat the convenience of a wide to high zoom lens. Plus the high zoom aurtomatically give you some bokeh even if the lens is not that fast. I used it on holiday a few times and was pleased with its flexibility. You know on holiday sometimes you take potrait shots and sometimes need to zoom to get more details. And you don't need to constantly change lens. I would recommend this range for holidays but of course, to bring one more prime lens along for that special un-hurried moment. A fast f/2.8 or f/1.4 between 30-50mm would do nicely. But an 80ish mm wouldn hurt too.:)
 

one952

New Member
Jun 10, 2010
145
0
0
#16
actually before i got my 18-200mm, i read alot of review. and one thing for SURE; 18-250mm is better(sharper, IQ better) then the 18-200mm. :)
but end up, i still get 18-200 coz of the pricing. but given a chance, i will ditch it for 18-250 anytime.
 

jason1980

New Member
Jul 6, 2010
131
0
0
#17
i got mine 2nd hand.. so no issues for me
 

Jun 24, 2011
93
0
0
#18
You guys are right! I did have good shots with the 18-135mm and the fact is I do not know how to use it to it's best potential.

Now I've got a better idea. Thank guys.
 

abeltcb

New Member
May 17, 2010
14
0
0
#20
how is this
Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC lens (Pentax mount)
compare with
Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR ?
 

Top Bottom