I have been thinking a lot lately about geting a bit more reach with AF. I don't have any AF lenses above 75mm.
The DA 50-200 seem to be the obvious answer to this "need", and thats what I have intended to buy. But now I've read a lot about the new Tamron 18-250. It gets very positive reviews, and positive user reports at DPReview. Many compares it with the Nikon 18-200. I've also seen it compared with the DA 50-200, and as I read the results they are rather similar at the long end. Except that the Tamron has poorer edge sharpness. But how important is edge sharpnes at the tele range? Most times when I'm using long glass it is to isolate the subject. The Tamron seem to be better than DA 50-200 around 50mm. It also seem to be on par with the 18-55, except at 18, there the 18-55 seem to have an edge (wide open). I know that test graphicks and practical rendering is not always the same. But the tests seems very convinsing. And so are the user reports. I'm not thinking the Tamron as a lens for serious work, more a walk about, a substitute for a P&S camera. I can also see a combination of the new DA* in my horizon. Most likely 16-50 and 60-250, perhaps even the 50-135 too. But in some situations a compromise seem to be the sensible thing. So until they turn up, and until I can turn up the cash the Tamron seem to be a good thing. What do you think? Have I lost it? (If I ever had it). I was "this" close to clicking the purchase button yesterday. Tim Typo Mostly Harmless -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
