Pentax 16-45 + Sigma 70-300 APO vs Tamron 18-250

[thxbb12]

Hi all,

I currently own a K10D with the 18-55 kit lens, a Sigma 70-300 APO and a SMC M 50mm f/1.4 (manual focus).

I wanted something wider than 18mm and better overall than the kit lens, so I decided to buy the Pentax 16-45 f/4. The fact there is a $100 rebate motivated me quite a bit as well: it makes the lens a bargain at $270 at abesofmaine (no tax and free shipping!). I bought it more for testing since there is a 30 day return policy. I'll test the lens this weekend.

Next month, I'll go on a 6-month honeymoon trip (Hawaii, Fiji, NZ, Australia, Indonesia, Thailand) and so far I've been thinking of taking the following lenses with me:

• Pentax 16-45 if I keep it, or 18-55 otherwise - for most of my shoots (especially landscapes)
• Sigma 70-300 for wildlife and surfing/windsurfing shots
• SMC M 50mm f/1.4 for dark/night shots and portraits

I think this would be a great combo, but it's not very convenient to carry 3 lenses around (well, mostly 2 during the day). Also I'm a bit afraid of missing some opportunities when 45 or 55mm won't give me enough reach - switching lenses can make you miss some potential good shots (and it's not counting the hassle of switching lenses itself).

Since I don't have much experience (I bought my K10D about 3 months ago, but I've been reading and shooting a lot since) I'm not sure how much of a hassle it's going to be in practice. Luckily my fiance is also into taking photos so we will actually share the camera quite a bit.

For the reasons stated above I started more and more thinking about the Tamron 18-250 as a one-in-all traveling lens. Looking at the results at photozone.de (especially the Nikon version) I have to say I was very impressed by it. It seems to have better resolution figures than my Sigma 70-300 APO from 120 to 250 (the Sigma is exceptional at 70mm however and it's probably also true at the beginning of the wide end too).

I'm pretty much sure there would be no match in the 18-45 range however, assuming I keep the 16-45. But the convenience of not having to switch lenses is extremely appealing. I guess I'd probably take the 50mm 1.4 along since it's so light and it would be great for night shots. Of course, money is also a big factor. So if I were to go the 18-250 way, I'd return my 16-45 and sell my 18-55. To me, one the biggest downsides of the 18-250 that it obviously only opens up to 18mm (I know 14x is already an incredible zoom) and it's a bit slow at the long end. Another drawback is the barrel deformation, but I post process all my shots, so it's not too big of a deal for me. Finally, the Sigma gives me 50mm more reach... which may be non negligible when shooting surfers or windsurfers.

I'm also curious to know how the 18-250 fares in comparison to the kit lens from 18 to 55mm for example.

What do you guys think? What would you do if you were to travel for 6 months and you had to pick one of these combinations:

• Tamron 18-250
• 18-55 kit lens with Sigma 70-300 APO
• 16-45 kit lens with Sigma 70-300 APO
• Also would you bring along the SMC M 50mm f/1.4? (in any of these cases)

Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.
--
Florent

 

[kathyk]

I think I would go with

• 16-45 kit lens with Sigma 70-300 APO

good image quality and the Sigma can produce a pretty nice macro as well. (not sure on the Tamron, is that one also capable?)

Since you have the 50/1.4 and it doesn't take up much room then it seems you might as well bring that one also?
--
-Kathy

 

[Larry Winters]

Hello:

I currently own the Tamron 18-250 and all 3 Pentax lenses...I also used to own the Sigma 70-300 in the Canon mount...

My Tamron stays on 90% of the time...It only comes off when the light is VERY low or I need more resolution for a print larger than 12x16"...That's when I use the Pentax 16-45 or Tamron 70-300 Di...

The Tamron 18-250 is a little weak at 250mm but the Sigma is worse at 250-300mm...I would venture to say you could crop the Tamron for the extra 50mm and be OK as compared to the Sigma...There is no doubt the 16-45 is a little better lens in almost all areas except the limited focal length...Having the luxory of instant 250mm with the Tamron is too much to ignore...

I would bring the 50 f/1.4 as well...It's so small and light and you never know when the ambient light will demand it's use...

Whatever you chose make sure to test them thoroughly for FF/BF and de-centered elements...It took 3 16-45's and 2 18-250's before I got what I considered a keeper of each one...

LW

Hi all,

I currently own a K10D with the 18-55 kit lens, a Sigma 70-300 APO
and a SMC M 50mm f/1.4 (manual focus).
I wanted something wider than 18mm and better overall than the kit
lens, so I decided to buy the Pentax 16-45 f/4. The fact there is a
$100 rebate motivated me quite a bit as well: it makes the lens a
bargain at $270 at abesofmaine (no tax and free shipping!). I
bought it more for testing since there is a 30 day return policy.
I'll test the lens this weekend.

Next month, I'll go on a 6-month honeymoon trip (Hawaii, Fiji, NZ,
Australia, Indonesia, Thailand) and so far I've been thinking of
taking the following lenses with me:

• Pentax 16-45 if I keep it, or 18-55 otherwise - for most of my

shoots (especially landscapes)

• Sigma 70-300 for wildlife and surfing/windsurfing shots
• SMC M 50mm f/1.4 for dark/night shots and portraits

I think this would be a great combo, but it's not very convenient to
carry 3 lenses around (well, mostly 2 during the day). Also I'm a
bit afraid of missing some opportunities when 45 or 55mm won't give
me enough reach - switching lenses can make you miss some potential
good shots (and it's not counting the hassle of switching lenses
itself).
Since I don't have much experience (I bought my K10D about 3 months
ago, but I've been reading and shooting a lot since) I'm not sure how
much of a hassle it's going to be in practice. Luckily my fiance is
also into taking photos so we will actually share the camera quite a
bit.

For the reasons stated above I started more and more thinking about
the Tamron 18-250 as a one-in-all traveling lens. Looking at the
results at photozone.de (especially the Nikon version) I have to say
I was very impressed by it. It seems to have better resolution
figures than my Sigma 70-300 APO from 120 to 250 (the Sigma is
exceptional at 70mm however and it's probably also true at the
beginning of the wide end too).
I'm pretty much sure there would be no match in the 18-45 range
however, assuming I keep the 16-45. But the convenience of not
having to switch lenses is extremely appealing. I guess I'd probably
take the 50mm 1.4 along since it's so light and it would be great for
night shots. Of course, money is also a big factor. So if I were to
go the 18-250 way, I'd return my 16-45 and sell my 18-55. To me, one
the biggest downsides of the 18-250 that it obviously only opens up
to 18mm (I know 14x is already an incredible zoom) and it's a bit
slow at the long end. Another drawback is the barrel deformation,
but I post process all my shots, so it's not too big of a deal for
me. Finally, the Sigma gives me 50mm more reach... which may be non
negligible when shooting surfers or windsurfers.
I'm also curious to know how the 18-250 fares in comparison to the
kit lens from 18 to 55mm for example.

What do you guys think? What would you do if you were to travel for
6 months and you had to pick one of these combinations:

• Tamron 18-250
• 18-55 kit lens with Sigma 70-300 APO
• 16-45 kit lens with Sigma 70-300 APO
• Also would you bring along the SMC M 50mm f/1.4? (in any of these

cases)

Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.
--
Florent

 

[thxbb12]

What you wrote is exactly what I've been thinking... The thing is that I know I'd probably want to print larger than 16x12 in some cases and also I'm not sure how often I'll actually need a longer reach than 45mm.

Regarding lens defects, it's been a concern of mine, but I'm not sure how to test for FF/BF and de-centered elements. What do you do exactly? I'll try to check my new 16-45mm.

Thanks.
--
Florent

 

[thxbb12]

The Tamron has also a macro mode, but macro is not that important to me.

It's quite disappointing that the sigma is worse than the Tamron in the long end. If it were not the case, it would definitely be an easier decision!

Thanks for your input.

--
Florent

 

[Bich]

I would bring 16-45+70-300+50.

About the 50M: are you sure it exposes correctly with the K10? many of us have problems with non-A lenses.

For the opportunities lost by having the wrong lens mounted: perhaps you could consider buying the cheap and light K100D or K100D super as second body.

Later, with time (after december) and (much) money you could replace the sigma by the 4/60-250 pentax. It would certainly double your rate of good pictures at the long end.
--
Jacques Bijtebier

 

[Larry Winters]

Hello Florent:

For FF/BF testing use the link below for instructions and then download/print the focus chart...I have used this chart/method for literally dozens of lenses and it has never failed me...Any lens that was iffy in this test never was a stellar lens unless stopped down to f/8 or more...Wide open they would always be sub par...Of course all this is assuming your camera has been verified to be OK by testing at least 3 lenses which are OK...I know this may seem like allot of BS to go through but if you want to be sure of obtainig a stellar copy, it's a must IMHO...

http://www.focustestchart.com/chart.html

For de-centered elements simply photograph a flat wall with some contrasty definition...Yes the old brick wall is perfect...Start wide open and gradually stop down with an assortment of focal lengths...Usually widest, middle and then full tele...An optimum lens will have all corners/edges of each photo with no resolution variation...They may be soft but they are all soft...One side/corner sharp and the other soft is usually a sign of a problem element...Even those with variations will usually equal out when stopped down so it's up to the user what they'll accept...

My 2 16-45's had a very mild FF but with everyday shots and even stopped down it was evident...Of course this was viewed at 100% which many disdain...My theory is that if it looks good at 100%, it'll look great on any print...

Hope this was helpful...

LW

What you wrote is exactly what I've been thinking... The thing is
that I know I'd probably want to print larger than 16x12 in some
cases and also I'm not sure how often I'll actually need a longer
reach than 45mm.

Regarding lens defects, it's been a concern of mine, but I'm not sure
how to test for FF/BF and de-centered elements. What do you do
exactly? I'll try to check my new 16-45mm.

Thanks.
--
Florent

 

[wjwncpro_Ds]

Go on a 6-month honeymoon, I'd trash the cheap stuff and drop a couple of K$$$ and get the new DA's* and the Sigma 135-400 or Bigma (50-500)

Hi all,

Next month, I'll go on a 6-month honeymoon trip (Hawaii, Fiji, NZ,
Australia, Indonesia, Thailand) and so far I've been thinking of
taking the following lenses with me:

What do you guys think? What would you do if you were to travel for
6 months and you had to pick one of these combinations:

That's what I think....

--
Hey, look at the 1 eyed human, and look how big it is…



My Pentax K10d galleries http://www.pbase.com/wjwncpro/k10d (GMT-6)

 

[wayne58604]

I have the 16-45 and although it is much better than the kit lens, I prefer the Sigma 17-70 (sharper, faster, better contrast, and better range). That, coupled with the 70-300 would just about cover everything you may encounter.

The 18-200 or 250 lenses are nice in that you don't have to change lenses. The negatives are slower focusing, distortion at the wide end, often have CA at the long end, and they lack the larger aperture, especially at the mid ranges where most of us tend to shoot.

If the 16-45 does not work for you, consider the 17-70 f2.8-4.5 Sigma (should be under $350)

Wayne

 

[Negative287]

Get the Tamron 200 - 500 it's much sharper than either of those two Sigma products.

Hi all,

Next month, I'll go on a 6-month honeymoon trip (Hawaii, Fiji, NZ,
Australia, Indonesia, Thailand) and so far I've been thinking of
taking the following lenses with me:

What do you guys think? What would you do if you were to travel for
6 months and you had to pick one of these combinations:

That's what I think....

--
Hey, look at the 1 eyed human, and look how big it is…



My Pentax K10d galleries http://www.pbase.com/wjwncpro/k10d (GMT-6)

--



'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

 

[gumpy]

I'd get the tammy

from all reports it's pretty good and the convenience... imagine going on a holiday and not have to change lenses... man that would be a luxury =)

I may get this lens in the future as a travel lens...

--
to state the obvious I effin' heart photography...

 

[Pete Dee]

Nice light setup, hard to beat IMHO. I have a 16-45 and a 70-300 and it is a nice combo but the 17-70 is a little faster at the wide end with a bit more reach can stay on more.

Cheers

Pete



http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete_with_pentax/

 

[cdutton]

Is the Tamron 200-500mm available for Pentax mount? Everything I can find says it's only available for Canon, Nikon and Minolta/Sony.

 

[Negative287]

You're right, it isn't available for that mount. I don't understand why these dealers won't release all of their lenses on the Pentax Mount... Seriously, with most of the focal range from 100 - 600mm largely untapped by Pentax (well, at least newer Pentax lenses anyway) they could make a killing selling these long zooms.

Is the Tamron 200-500mm available for Pentax mount? Everything I can
find says it's only available for Canon, Nikon and Minolta/Sony.

--



'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

 

[tapir]

... and you won't miss focal length between 45-70. Tamron 70-300 Di is also cheaper than Sigma 70-300. I have both DA 16-45 and Sigma 17-70 and much prefer latter for the reasons already mentioned by previous poster - better overall IQ, faster, longer range, 1:2.3 closeup, better build, doesn't block pop-up flash (as 16-45 does at wide end).

If you plan to use asymmetrical filters like Circular Polarizer (which you should for things like windsurfing and general water/sea landscapes) stay away from Sigma/Tamron 70-300 - both rotate front element during AF.

And don't forget light collapsible travel monopod, it'll help you a lot especially with a slow long zoom like 18-250 (which I wouldn't recommend anyway).

I have the 16-45 and although it is much better than the kit lens, I
prefer the Sigma 17-70 (sharper, faster, better contrast, and better
range). That, coupled with the 70-300 would just about cover
everything you may encounter.

The 18-200 or 250 lenses are nice in that you don't have to change
lenses. The negatives are slower focusing, distortion at the wide
end, often have CA at the long end, and they lack the larger
aperture, especially at the mid ranges where most of us tend to shoot.

If the 16-45 does not work for you, consider the 17-70 f2.8-4.5
Sigma (should be under $350)

Wayne

--
http://www.pbase.com/klopus

 

[thxbb12]

Thank you very much Larry.

What you're saying makes me a bit worried regarding the quality of the lenses I already own. I didn't realize defects can be so frequent. I'll follow the instructions on the link you posted, but I noticed I'll need a tripod that I don't have at the moment.

I've also been considering the Sigma 17-70, but after reading the tests on photozone.de, it seemed to me it was clearly inferior to the 16-45 except regarding CA. This is why I removed it from my list. After what I've been reading here however, I may revisit my decision.

Thanks all for your input, I greatly appreciate it!

--
Florent

 

[thxbb12]

I'll either keep the 70-300 or get the Tamron 18-250, so I don't have much choice regarding the tele options. Also for budget reason, if I decide to go for the latter, I'll sell my SMC 18-55 and Sigma 70-300 and return the 16-45.

In your opinion how better is the Sigma 17-70 compare to the DA 16-45 in term of IQ?
Why wouldn't you recommend the Tamron 18-250?

Thanks.

If you plan to use asymmetrical filters like Circular Polarizer
(which you should for things like windsurfing and general water/sea
landscapes) stay away from Sigma/Tamron 70-300 - both rotate front
element during AF.

And don't forget light collapsible travel monopod, it'll help you a
lot especially with a slow long zoom like 18-250 (which I wouldn't
recommend anyway).

I have the 16-45 and although it is much better than the kit lens, I
prefer the Sigma 17-70 (sharper, faster, better contrast, and better
range). That, coupled with the 70-300 would just about cover
everything you may encounter.

The 18-200 or 250 lenses are nice in that you don't have to change
lenses. The negatives are slower focusing, distortion at the wide
end, often have CA at the long end, and they lack the larger
aperture, especially at the mid ranges where most of us tend to shoot.

If the 16-45 does not work for you, consider the 17-70 f2.8-4.5
Sigma (should be under $350)

Wayne

--
http://www.pbase.com/klopus

--
Florent

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92066060@N00/

 

[thxbb12]

Jacques,

I just realized I don't have the M version but the A version: SMC Pentax-A 1:1.4 to quote what's written on the lens.
Sorry for the confusion!

I'm not sure if the exposure issues you're mentioning affect this lens, but I didn't have any problems at all so far. I can't be happier with the lens.

I would bring 16-45+70-300+50.
About the 50M: are you sure it exposes correctly with the K10? many
of us have problems with non-A lenses.
For the opportunities lost by having the wrong lens mounted: perhaps
you could consider buying the cheap and light K100D or K100D super as
second body.
Later, with time (after december) and (much) money you could replace
the sigma by the 4/60-250 pentax. It would certainly double your rate
of good pictures at the long end.
--
Jacques Bijtebier

--
Florent

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92066060@N00/

 

[thxbb12]

Well, my fiancee and I have been saving money for years to do this trip and we plan on traveling on a very low budget (camping, etc.).

I don't want to spend thousands of $$$ in lenses and gear. If money wasn't an issue I'd already have a 1D Mark III with half a dozen of L lenses

Hi all,

Next month, I'll go on a 6-month honeymoon trip (Hawaii, Fiji, NZ,
Australia, Indonesia, Thailand) and so far I've been thinking of
taking the following lenses with me:

What do you guys think? What would you do if you were to travel for
6 months and you had to pick one of these combinations:

That's what I think....

--
Hey, look at the 1 eyed human, and look how big it is…



My Pentax K10d galleries http://www.pbase.com/wjwncpro/k10d (GMT-6)

--
Florent

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92066060@N00/

 

[Ray Maines]

Do the Sigma and Pentax lenses rotate in the same directions to go from wide to telephoto?
--