i'm using 18-105mm kitlens now, and i came across this lens,

1)Tamron AF 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 XR Di II ~rm8xx

with the price as such, im thinking to maybe sell off my kitlens and get this, with the extra 95mm added to the zoom capability, i think should be worth it. but that's all theory. what do u guys think? isit worth it? i've always wanted an extra zooom capabilities. currently i have kitlens and 50mm 1.8 lens only.

I find that's a downgrade.

18-105 VR itself is a superb kit lens. sure there are differences in perspective of 105 to 200mm but how good do you think the IQ of such lens at 200mm?

Furthermore it doesn't have the SWM like the 18-105 VR does........ oh and it doesn't have VR either.

the extra zoom is just not worth it.

i see.. seems like there's no cheap way to get the few extra zooms. i've read what ken rockwells said too, but his opinion r sometimes exaggerated, that's why im seeking another opinion.

if u want extra zoom, either get the nikon 55-200VR or top up around rm100+ more and get the better nikon 55-300VR.

want 18-200 also go for the Nikon's 18-200 VR la, not that Tamron.

tight budget . actually i promised myself not to upgrade until i fully mastered the kitlens.. but now gatal ady. hahahha

---

Added on November 20, 2012, 12:28 am this seems feasible tho

This post has been edited by Pmc: Nov 20 2012, 12:28 AM

tight budget then why bother with that nonsense Tamron la?

save up kau kau, get your self a nice Nikkor lens. Nikon has many great lenses so you should channel your money to where it's GOOD!

my recommendation if you are on a tight budget is to go for the tamron 17-50 VR or non VR F2.8 instead of the kit lens. You will love the constant 2.8 aperture and the save up to get some nice nikkor lens !

i wun bash brands, but the range 18-200 is excellent as a general lense.

sure, in terms of sharpness etc, it may not be the sharpest at the long end, but hey, if u can get the shots u wan instead of missing it, then it's a +.

the tamron price u gave is dirt cheap compare to nikon 18-200, but nikon lenses have a build quality that i personally think tamron hv not quite reach there...

not really a fan of 3rd party lenses, but i think tokina lenses r built like a tank

the problem is that's not the range that i wanted. hehe.. i have kit lens + 50mm 1.8 lens, so kinda enough for me for portraiture n landscaping. now lack is some zoom capabilities.

i heard alot of tamron lens have backfocus/front focus problems tho, which make me reluctant. too bad i dont have the luxury to borrow n test lenses before buy, as my circle of friends r all not into photography.

Not just Tamron. Sigma too.

To test lenses, you can always test it at the store.

I used the tamron 18-200mm before. Sold it after two months. Not recommended. IQ poor against kit lens IQ.

go shoot more bro, get your mind away from that for awhile.

i do not have 200 or 300mm capable lense. But I think those are good for solo portraiture(with alot of space to run around), sports and wild life shooting.

if you are not into that, your current setup already can do miracles. Maybe you can look into speedlights. It will make amazing portraits. haaha...sorry for the new poison.

Bad idea. The Tamron AF 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 XR Di II can't compare with your 18-105 in terms of picture quality and distortion control.

I love this lense. You can take a look at my flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/65315244@N04/.

All taken with 18-105. Just take note u have to fix the barrel distortion at 18mm

woah...nice landscape pics! composition is perfect!

sorry may I ask, what is barrel distortion? I have 18-105 kitlense also.

i'd advise against the tamron 18-200 as well. if u really want a 18-200, save up for the nikon.

that being said, the 18-105 is already a fine lens

haha.. speedlights is already in the list so it's not considered poison.

ic.. something must b really wrong with the tammy, so far all the comments is not on their side

yeah, your pic is good. but, i wanted to ask i somehow feel my landscape pic are not that sharp.. what do u think i went wrong with? normally i should handheld, but with fast shutter speed, i don't think that's a problem rite? u can check my pics from my flickr.. C&C is always welcomed

i guess there's nothing to lose by saving some money rite?

get de nikon VR II...so much better, not reali sharp at the longest end (as in tele end for a lense) but it so much better then 3rd party..n with SWM n VR too..had one last time, superb quality at 180mm
n for a walkaround superzoom, nikon has f5.6 at de tele compare to f6.3 for 3rd party

https://www.google.com.my/search?q=what+is+...Bw&ved=0CCoQsAQ
Barrel distortion causes the horizon to be not straight. THis is undesirable in landscape and we don't usually put senget pics in landscape photography


Your pics looked sharp ar. With this VR lens, the lowest i go is 1/15 at 18mm. With proper handling techniques it should be plentiful sharp.

I also apply some sharpening during PP. Another thing is, when uploading pics to internet, do not upload the full size jpeg. I find that FB and even flickr did a bad job when compressing the pic making it unsharp. Just upload the pic which can fit in the normal screen resolution is enough

i did apply some sharpening/clarity during PP. hehe. i never upload full size img tho. normally it will be 8xx x 5xx dimension. agreed with your comments when upload on Fb, even pic is resized, the pic is not as nice as original ones.