AF18-200MM F/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II ASPHERICAL (IF) MACRO - Image?

[alphaomega]

Just passed on my Tamron 18-250 F3.5-6.3 to my son. I do have a very occasional use for a wide to tele, but not prepared to fork out around £350 or more for the 18-250 or even more for the Sigma equivalent. I have seen the above Tamron 18-200 for sale at £170. That would be more like what I would prepared to pay. Any views on the qualities of the 18-200 compared with the newer 18-250? For dedicated telephoto shots I have the Tamron 70-300, which performs very well for its price and weight. Portability is a main consideration. Any comments based on usage would be welcome. Thanks in advance.

[David Kilpatrick]

It's not bad, though the 18-250mm is better at 200mm than the 18-200mm is at 200mm - that's probably the main difference.

Are you sure the £170 offer is not for the Nikon fit version? Tamron has been selling these off because they don't work with the D3000, D5000, D60, or any other new consumer level Nikon bodies.

David

[alphaomega]

Thanks for the comments.

Park Cameras have the Tamron 18-200 advertised at £158.99 on http://www.parkcameras.com/c/72/Sony-Mi ... tml?Page=4

Looks like a good price to me, but only if the lens will perform reasonably well. Looking at Dyxum the reviews are so so with the lens coming out good but not fantastic. Switching to the Sigma 18-200 (not OS) the views seem to be similar with so so resolution and slow AF.

Might go for the Tamron as for most uses I will fit Tamron 10-24, CZ 16-80 and Tamron 70-300 to cover the field I require.

[alphaPDX]

I have a fine copy of the Sigma 18-200, but it would zoom the reverse way from all your Tamrons - that bothers some people while others are indifferent. But it sounds like only the Tamron is at the price you like? I found 18-200 worth it for the weight and size improvements, I presume Tamron's copy is similarly sized. My Sigma focuses faster than the Tam 18-250, not by much but even a little bit helps!

Pretty much all of http://picasaweb.google.com/alphaPDX/Sierra are using the 18-200 (mine's the Quantaray copy, sold by Ritz), and are standard-issue A200 jpg (the good ones processed from RAW are at /best09).

[alphaomega]

David Kilpatrick's influence reaches wide and can have unforseen outcomes. I was about to order the Tamron 18-200 when a one year old perfect Tamron 18-250 Sony fit appeared on ebay. I bid £226.50 but lost to £230.35 or thereabouts. I had a question and the seller told me cheerfully that he was selling as he had read DK's review of the new Sigma and was going to purchase it as a result of reading that review. So there you are and I lost out by £5 (I was away on the bid closing date). I have now ordered the 18-200 from Park Cameras at £158.99 and free shipping. It arrived today so I shall try it out shortly. Surely that lens must be worth at least £158.99. Maybe Tamron are selling it cheaply and a new is on its way? I gather that Sigma has just release a new 18-200 with anti-shake built in. Not for me. I was put off by David's review. Cannot face having that device floating about inside when I don't like it and won't need it. I guess that the name of the game is to get lenses free of anti shake built in from the independents before it is too late.

[David Kilpatrick]

The 18-200mm has one benefit - you don't get charged $300 for entering Machu Picchu while carrying it! Anything over 200mm they class as professional and you must then pay a permit charge to use it.

NB: we found the 18-250mm much better at 200mm. So we sold 18-200mm, bought Tamron 18-250mm. Then later a Sony 18-250mm came up for sale here, so we swapped - I can say it is not better than the Tamron, but it's as good. Identical in results.

David

[alphaPDX]

I guess that the name of the game is to get lenses free of anti shake built in from the independents before it is too late.

I agree - the new models are substantially larger and heavier. Certainly it's easier for 3rd-party folks to make a single lens of each type, and the Can/Nik are the large gorillas in the room.. but carrying the extra weight for redundant IS makes little sense to me.

I seem to have about a 450g limit, personally, beyond which I look for alternatives.. unless it's my SP14 (maybe that's short enough to feel less massive?). Sad, though: I'd really like a piece of Minolta history in the form of a Big Beercan some day..

[ianmiddy]

...we sold 18-200mm, bought Tamron 18-250mm. Then later a Sony 18-250mm came up for sale here, so we swapped - I can say it is not better than the Tamron, but it's as good. Identical in results.

I'm glad to hear it - my ex-DK 18-250 has been on my 7D & A700 for the majority of the 5000+ shots I've taken in the past 10mths whilst working away - extremely pleased with the results and only occasionaly frustrated with the focussing speed.

Used almost as much as my Sig 180/5.6 for macro work, esp. flowers - but it didn't seem to do so well on the A350, so maybe 12mp is a far as it's wise to go - anyone else used it on the higher mp bodies with good results ?

Cheers

IDM

[alphaomega]

Now done some test shots with my £159 Tamron 18-200 and found these acceptable at all settings and focal lengths, but I must agree with DK that it is not just as good as the 18-250. But then the 18-250 is £200 more expensive and I only need this lens for occasional use where image quality is not as crucial as when I shoot for Alamy.