Equipment Tamron 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 AF Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro

Does anyone use this Tamron? I use Sony a300 with 17-80 kit lenses, but planning is some near future to buy another one tele. Maybe this Tamronis the best idea - sell kit and get this one-for-all lenses???

http://www.camerabox.co.uk/productD...herical-(IF)-Macro-(Sony-Fit-)&ProductID=5016

 

I have no experience with that lens, but know that f/6.3 is so slow that most consumer-level cameras can't use autofocus (not sure about your Sony, but that's the case for most Canon and Nikon bodies).

 

Yes, I read something about this.. Looks like except this Tamron and Sony 18-250 there is no other al-in-one lenses.
Looks like th best choice would be another lenses - tele. But which one is really fast, bright and sharp? 70-300? 70-250?

 

The super zooms like the 2 you are looking at are a study in compromise. They excel at nothing except the focal ranges they encompass. They are never sharp through out the zoom range and have often wildly fluctuating apertures. They simply are trying to do to much and so the designers have to cut something.

I have often championed the 2 lens kit. One reasonably wide zoom (17-70 range) and longer telephoto (70-200 range). This allows you to make one time purchases of much better quality lenses. I won't go so far as to call the super zooms a waste of money, but I do see a lot of people that get them and then feel somehow cheated. Then they get irritated that they have to spend more money to replace the "wonder" lens. I would head over to fred miranda and take a peek at what lenses there are for the KM mount in those 2 focal ranges. Take a look at all 3 of the after market lens guys: Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. There are some gems in their lineups that are a great values.

 

I've got a Tamron 28-300 on the konica minolta 5D (basically the same as the Sony) and I love it. Mine is also an f6.3, it autofocuses just fine, and I recommend it without question. I've also got a 19-35mm wide angle, but I would say I use the 28-300 about 80+ percent of the time. The one you're looking at is optimized for the digital and would no doubt be a wonderful lens for everyday use. Personally I would probably back it up with a 500mm reflector.

Having to carry two lenses and change back and forth is a pain in the arse, and not something that can ever be done quite quickly enough. There are certainly compromises, but for my money, the super tele is the best single lens you can own.

 

Although Jumeira_Johnny is entirely right in that a two-lens kit is far better than an all-in-one lens, nothing can beat the convenience that a single lens can bring you. That's why the Nikon 18-200 is still an amazing lens because its performance for its zoom range is unmatched, and well worth the compromise.

On the subject of this specific lens, I've read several professional reviews (tested MTF graphs, DxO analyzed, etc) and the general consensus is that it's a great all-in-one lens, especially considering the price. Stopping down about a stop at all zoom levels creates a sharp and contrasty image, with little vignetting. If you're looking for a Sony-compatible all-in-one, there's no better choice, except for the Sony-branded version (differences are noted below). However, you say you have the 18-70mm kit lens. You will get better performance from two lenses, although given the good reviews coming in about the Tamron/Sony 18-250mm lens, I am unsure as to how much better.

Be careful, some of the reviews below are of the Tamron, and others of the Sony.

http://www.alphamountworld.com/reviews/sony-18-250mm-f35-63-review?page=0%2C0 is a good review, and page 4 lists the negligible differences between the Tamron and the Sony. Faster AF, higher build quality, and rounded aperture blades for better bokeh, for a negligible boost in price.
http://photoclubalpha.kilpatrickmedia.net/tamron18250/tamron18250.html is also a good review.
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4110/lens-test-tamron-18-250mm-f35-63-di-ii-macro.html
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_18_250.html
http://www.shutterbug.com/newsletter/052907tamron/
http://www.lasplash.com/publish/Photography_196/Tamron_18-250mm_Di_II_Lens_Review.php?date=2008-08-01
http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/cameraaccessories/tamron-af-18250mm-f3563-di-ii-lens-.aspx

You can make an educated decision for yourself. If you do decide to get one, I'd recommend getting the Sony for the faster AF, but who knows.

 

Ever shot with two bodies, one for wide and one for tele? I'd suggest not making such all-encompassing statements. Let me know when there's a 17-200f/2.8 and then we'll talk.

 

Ever tried not being condescending? Seriously, I was providing an OPINION, which you decided to deride instead of rebut. I provided a multi-paragraph answer, in which I cited several positive reviews. You had 3 sentences which provided a vague idea and a hypothetical situation, serving only to insult me and not to help the OP.

Of course multiple bodies/lenses are the best solution, but I figured that since the OP was talking about the a300 and kit lenses, and asking about Tamron product quality, that multiple bodies/Carl Zeiss lenses weren't options in this case. Ideally, I'm sure we'd all love to have multi-body multi-lens systems, but given that the price is 2-3x greater than a single-body ultra-zoom system, it's not worth it for all but the professional photographer. Are you suggesting that he purchase another a300 and a 70-200mm for telephoto? Or are you simply trying to one-up me? I usually find great advice from your posts, and I respect that you know a lot more than me, but I don't think one-up-manship is a valid reason for posting. If the OP is looking for the most convenient option for the most reasonable price, without compromising a serious amount of image quality, then the Sony 18-250mm lens is a great choice for the a300. I've read great things about it (and my previous post contains several positive reviews), and you would be very happy with it, as long as you don't mind the compromises in image quality it may make. The reviews provide plenty of visual examples of the image quality and comparisons, and how it looks at smaller apertures. By the way, most zooms do not perform at their best at their largest apertures, except for a few great lenses.

 

Yes, 9 hours of wandering round a wedding with 30D/70-200 2.8 IS and 5D/24-70/430EX, and it's a massive effort. It really isn't much of an option unless you absolutely have to have such specialised lenses ready all the time; hours of shooting with such a weight around your neck isn't something most sensible people would ever consider...

 

Agreed, two bodies is an ideal solution, but certainly not a practical one. I've observed that this is what most pros do, but for us amateurs this is not an option for any number of reasons.

 

I hear you on that one.

As for the OP, take JJ's advice and skip lenses of this type-- Unless you absolutely need one (going on a trip and have limited space). There are other options which will provide you with much better results...this is the point of having a DSLR...if your looking for a one lens solution which covers WA-200mm+ your better off with a P&S.

 

I think that you will find that the Tamron/Sony 18-250mm fulfills pretty much the same role in Minolta AF/Sony Alpha mount (e.g. compare the Photozone.de tests of the Nikon & Tamron as they haven't tested the Sony version yet).

 

Guys - thank you all for your comments!

You're right - I think loosing some degree od image quality using super all-in-one lenses is enough for me to just drop the subject. I'm an amatour, looking for good ewuipment to make very good pictures. I used p&s for 10 years, and I moved to dSLRs to start something new, get some new experience and learn how to make good pictures. I know that good hardware can help a lot to achieve it, that is why I would porbably go for second lenses, and maybe after some time change kit one to somewthing better for first range...

Thanks for all those links - I already read some of them, saw all advantages and disadvantages of Sony and Tamron. When you read this kind of reviews - for me it is always very hard to judge after, cause all those example pictures and all reviews are made by pros I would probably never find out what are real pros and cons of lenses, cause don't think I will be that good as they are On the other hand I read them anyway cause they easly can point out all issues I can find using reviewed hardware. For me SOny and Tamron are both nice, Sony a bit faster, but still hard to decide. I have to say I like pictures made with my kit lenses, so after a while I will be able to use something better and actually make a use of it, I hope you guys understand me.. I found a lot of reviews of other lenses on those pages - Have to say there are some really nice pearls out there - not those super all in one lenses - I'm talking about some special ones, with smaller zoom range but better light, faster AF - all that we are looking for... It makes me closer to picking second lenses, then buying all-in-one... SOmetimes it is a pain to change then on the run, when my daughter is running away and I want to shot a nice long range picture

Well, I will never buy another body for three reasons - 1. don't want to keep two cameras on my neck and run with them all the time (I'm not a national geographic pro), 2. my wife won't never let me spend that amount of money on second camera ("Why do you want another camera??!! First one isn't enough???!!"), 3. again.. wife...

Yep, true... That is why I went for dSLR. Plus, I believe in most of the cases I can always pick one lenses, mount them and go for a walk, knowing what will be a subject of my photos.. I hope I will...