k10d with 18-200
- Thread starter ahlow
- Start date
- Status
Which 1 have better iq ? 18-250 or 18-200 ? Do you know the market price for 18-250 ?
Thankyou.
$499 from amazon.com, but you'll need a friend in the US.
Local price for the 18-200 i dont' know.
The 18-200 is likely to have better iq - generally the lower the zoom ratio the better the iq, but it's hard to tell what the difference is yet because there are no reviews of the 18-250 out.
I suspect it'll depend more on sample variation (i.e. how well the particular lens you buy is built) rather than anything else.
The announced ship date before it stated "available soon" was Jan 15th - but I didn't order and so I don't know...
I happened to have Tamron AF 28-200/3.8-5.6 and Sigma AF 24-135/2.8-4.5 (both K-mounts). Between the 2 super-zooms, Tamron seems to have a slight edge over Sigma in terms of IQ... but the difference is not a lot.
Of the major 3rd-party manufacturers, I noted that Sigma seems to do better in wide/macro lenses. Most of my wide lenses are Sigmas (50mm macro, 24mm, 16mm). Tamron is good in 'holiday lens' zooms and super-zooms/hyper-zooms, while Tokina seems to fare well in tele-lenses (I have yet to try the Tokina wide-zooms, so I cannot comment on those). Just my current observation and a broad sweeping statement... YMMV
Of the major 3rd-party manufacturers, I noted that Sigma seems to do better in wide/macro lenses. Most of my wide lenses are Sigmas (50mm macro, 24mm, 16mm). Tamron is good in 'holiday lens' zooms and super-zooms/hyper-zooms, while Tokina seems to fare well in tele-lenses (I have yet to try the Tokina wide-zooms, so I cannot comment on those). Just my current observation and a broad sweeping statement... YMMV
I did alot of research on the net for the 2. The Tamron was rated at having better built quality while the sigma was optically better. I chose the better quality. But you need to know this is relative, while the sigma was better than the tamron. overall both's image quality invariably will not satisfy if your standards are high. the sigma cost around S$700 from John 3:16 . The strength of these lenses are the coverage. 18mm wide to 200-250mm zoom. No need to change lens! That being said , IQ is adequate for most general purposes such as family outing, holiday pics, etc.
hi, do you have any links showing sigma is optically better? because i just read cameralab.com shootout of 18-200s, seems like the tests show tamron better except for the outdoor test..
not anymore. you can try and google it. I saw a comparison review in a photography magazine (can't remember which) that my colleague borrowed from the library. All I know is looking at the sample images, the sigma did look better.
there was actually a magazine with a 18-200 review between the 2 that i came across at Toa Payoh library but some selfish idiot tore the whole article out (yes! all the pages on the review had been removed!) apparently, he/she had never heard of a photostat machine.
that's more like a user report tho instead of a proper review
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Tamron18200mm/
has a shootout between sigma, tamron, nikon; tamron seems pretty ok there
My earlier post mentioned that Tamron seems to have a slight edge over Sigma when I compared the 2 slightly different super-zooms... again it's more of a personal opinion. Someone asked for 'proof' that Sigma is optically better, so I found a user's review for that too.
I guess the best lens is one which produce photos that appeal to the user most, despite all that 'measurbation' shootouts. What is off-focus to some is bokeh to others
Do a google...there are alot of "personal" opinions out there.
I believe the different camps ended up with bad batches which is why some saw the tamron images as flawed while other saw the same for the sigma. overall, I doubt I can see the difference in real life if I don't scrutinise the images with the a magnifying glass!
But personally for me also, the sigma lens look nicer. the gold rings on the tamron look so "uncle" for me (although I am an uncle myself..haha).
I believe the different camps ended up with bad batches which is why some saw the tamron images as flawed while other saw the same for the sigma. overall, I doubt I can see the difference in real life if I don't scrutinise the images with the a magnifying glass!
But personally for me also, the sigma lens look nicer. the gold rings on the tamron look so "uncle" for me (although I am an uncle myself..haha).
- Status
Similar threads
