2010/2/23 Subash <[email protected]>: > hi, > > for my bicycle ride in the himalayas this summer, i need to keep the > things i take to a bare essential minimum. as for the camera gear, > since i can't afford to take multiple lenses, i was thinking of > getting the sigma 17-70 (older version). but after a month of trying, > it's just not available here and it doesnt' look as if the situation > is going to change. what *is* available is the tamron 18-250. it looks > like a very convenient travel lens but i would like to hear the > opinion of people here who have used it before buying it. so, > appreciate and welcome your inputs. > > regards, subash
hi subash, nice to hear your trip preps are moving along =) the pentax version of the 18-250 was my first lens because at the time I could afford only one lens, period. It was the always on for about 5000 exposures before I got more glass. May I intersperse the question why you choose Tamron over Pentax? It is no longer my always on which is now the 16-50 because of its superior performance and handling but the 18-250 is still my always carried - as often as I can it is in a pocket somewhere because it is "good enough" to the point that I don't see enough difference or need to replace it with a 55-200 or 50-300 and don't pack enough moola for a 60-250 unless I can get one used at half price or so. It is sharper wide open than the 16-50, although not tack sharp and still sharp enough at f/8 although outdone by the 16-50 then. Ultimately, both are blown out of the water at all apertures by the DFA 50 and 100 but that doesn't come as much of a surprise for me and that's all she wrote for Pentax lenses I own. Zoom creep wouldn't be so bad if it was zoom creep, my copy exhibits more symptoms of zoom fall when pointed down more than a few degrees but I have yet to find a way to slow that down. Now that I write about it the idea crosses my mind to take some really thin el cheapo packaging use display protector foil and put it on/around the outermost barrel to thicken it just enough. I have two big rolls of that stuff so I will give it a try and see what comes. What I am trying to say: keep an eye on the degree of zoom creep as in the long run it gets to be a huge pain. Distortion of horizontal lines at the wide end is no fun at all if you shoot horizontal lines a lot but no issue otherwise. The viewfinder image darkens some at the long end but only on appropriate levels. I can't quite agree with Tim about the far end performance. But then I have nothing to pixel peep compare with directly. My Canon FD 70-210/4 and 200/4 are no option for lack of comparability. All I can do is ask buddy next door to borrow his K-7 and 55-200 WR kit lens and take some comparison shots (with my K10D as well) - if that helps you I will gladly do so!! What I can say is I've never had to weed out a shot because of a short between eye and subject that was not either autofocus or metering. I manual focus a lot and properly focused the lens works fine. I can also say that now that I have other glass I have never when shooting with the 18-250 in a respective focal length also covered by another piece of glass I have found myself thinking "damn why didn't I bring the soandso-mm/bla"; it is still god enough as an always on in my book. Hope this helps and I have lots of time on my hands still being sick at home so feel free to ask for all the shots you need. Cheers Ecke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
